This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: cmake update needed
- From: Marco Atzeri <marco dot atzeri at gmail dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 11:37:05 +0100
- Subject: Re: cmake update needed
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <54D1F25E dot 20701 at gmail dot com> <BAY169-DS1438076617CAC9B60DFC2CA73A0 at phx dot gbl> <1423093749 dot 596 dot 11 dot camel at cygwin dot com> <BAY169-DS20D64B9DEEF05161FF6EEFA73B0 at phx dot gbl> <1423107612 dot 596 dot 24 dot camel at cygwin dot com> <BAY169-DS2928D017F1DAC36EBB51CA73B0 at phx dot gbl>
On 2/5/2015 7:37 AM, Tony Kelman wrote:
Given our past experience in working with upstream, anyone who
maintains a working cmake is going to have to carry patches long-term,
if not permanently.
 http://www.cmake.org/pipermail/cmake/2010-October/040353.html and
Yes, those took a while, but they were resolved eventually.
yes, it took a bit of diplomacy and a lot of patience.
I recommend the same for the future.
All these patches are the result of years of real-world usage of cmake,
and there will likely be more patches required in the future. I can't
tell you off the top of my head which packages require each of these
changes, but I can tell you why they are necessary (and a few of them
should be quite obvious).
That would help. Someone else is welcome to maintain the package without
asking any questions, but if I'm going to do it I'd like to know what
those patches are for. I have your git history, but your commit messages
are not particularly enlightening. I'm asking for failure cases, links
to bug reports or previous postings, or similar. I don't think that's an
unreasonable request, is it? I'll put the patches back and rebuild, but
I'd like to understand them first.
More easy to convince upstream if you know that also.
Thanks for taking over