Grant
On 27.04.2018 18:41, Grant Erickson wrote:
[..]
By far and away, for moderate- to reasonably-complex packages, the
build system infrastructure of choice—for better or worse—is
GNU autotools.
That's *your opionion*. I wouldn't speak of *is* here.
Anyway, as you noted below, for those not knowing autotools, as you
stated below it can be hard for beginners. And reading some posts on
lwip-users, I don't think it's a good idea to use autotools for lwIP,
which is a library wihout too much code pulled in.
But out of curiosity, what would you expect from autotools for lwIP?
I'd expect that cc.h and some of the functions declared in def.h
could be autodetected. Any more? I don't suppose autotools would help
anything in opt.h/lwipopts.h.
And we would still get makefiles in the end, would we?
And how would it work on windows? I don't want people to have people
to install cygwin or mingw or something to compile the win32 port ;-)
I rarely have run into CMake (perhaps on one or two occasions at
most) for open source projects, particularly those for embedded
systems.
Neither did I. That doesn't mean it's not good.
However, I don't really have a strong opinion on this. I still want
an msvc project to be available in the windows port without having to
install cmake.
Other than that, the question of make, cmake or anything else is
rather a question for contrib, is it? When keeping the (relatively
new) file Filelists.mk, we can just have the same thing for cmake. I
doesn't mean people have to compile lwIP with cmake. It would just
mean people would have to start with cmake when compiling the unix
port etc...
Simon
_______________________________________________
lwip-devel mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-devel