Source directory restructuring

[John Ralls]

> On Aug 9, 2017, at 8:02 PM, Geert Janssens <geert.gnucash at kobaltwit.be> wrote:
> 
> On woensdag 9 augustus 2017 18:51:52 CEST Geert Janssens wrote:
>>> Geert and I use the cmake+ninja build system most of the time and the
>>> Windows automated build has been using it for just over a year. I think
>>> that it's well tested. There's a known problem that the dependency graph
>>> doesn't capture everything especially for some of the scheme modules so
>>> allowing too much parallelism (setting -j too high on a many-core machine)
>>> will try to build some things before their dependencies are done. That's
>>> not a blocker to dropping autotools. The only loose end at present is that
>>> there are still a few rough edges in the dist target that need to be
>>> cleaned up.
>> 
>> Which dist target rough edges are you referring to here ?
>> 
>> I know there is the issue I can't add Makefile.in files to the dist tarball
>> (because Rob's dist rules prevent my cmake version from running the
>> necessary commands). Other than that the dist tarball generated via both
>> build systems are identical on my system after I ironed out a few minor
>> issues last month. Since we're right now discussing dropping autotools,
>> this very issue becomes moot.
>> 
>> Do you know other ones ?
> 
> Oh, and there is this little detail called Travis... Perhaps I should first 
> test whether it can switch to cmake or not.

I did when I was testing it but now I've forgotten. Having the tarball have both systems configs and makefiles and so on was certainly one of them, and you're right that it's moot when we drop autotools.

I'm sure that Travis can do cmake, but not sure that it can do a new enough cmake: We need at least 3.0 and 3.2 or later is preferred. ISTR that Travis has only 2.8.

Regards,
John Ralls