[Graham Bloice <graham.bloice@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 20 November 2014 08:53, Maarten Bezemer <maarten.bezemer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thursday 13 November 2014 15:15:26 you wrote:
> On Thursday 13 November 2014 13:56:26 Graham Bloice wrote:
> > While I'm all for making life easier for devs, if no-one else has
> > identified this as a need, i.e. only you find it worthwhile, then we will
> > end up with stuff not generally used in the repo and then who will be
> > maintaining these bits of CMake?
>
> [1] is an attempt I found to have out of source builds. But it never got fed
> back to Wireshark and consists (eventually) outdated scripts. By
> integrating such functionality, keeps the development scripts up-to-date.
>
> I am also willing to write a (wiki) document explaining the out of source
> builds (when my patches get accepted) to help out others as well. As the
> current information about this subject on the Internet is very minimal.
>
> The maintenance of my patches is not too hard I think. I mainly use (cmake)
> scripts that are already available. The changes I made are to make them more
> generic, e.g. by getting rid of hard-coded paths. All scripts are
> also/already used when Wireshark itself gets build.

Is there anything left for me to do or to explain?
I would like gain some momentum either direction (approved or abandoned), so I
know whether my current (out of source) plug-in implementation can be used at
work or not.

I was hoping to get a comment from Joerg Mayer  (our resident CMake dev) but he's been a bit quiet lately.

I'm really struggling for time at the moment to test and comment on it myself.

--

Graham Bloice