Re: Feature request: CMake-mode

[Ergus <spacibba@aol.com>]

On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 02:25:57AM +0200, �scar Fuentes wrote:
>Ergus <spacibba@aol.com> writes:
>
>> Hi:
>>
>> I have just noticed that Emacs does not have any native mode for cmake,
>> not even in elpa. And cmake is becomming more and more popular these
>> days.
>
>Yes.
>
>> There is a package in melpa which is very poorly maintained by the
>> cmake community.
>>
>> https://melpa.org/packages/cmake-mode-20190710.1319.el
>> https://github.com/Kitware/CMake/blob/master/Auxiliary/cmake-mode.el
>
>And you think that we would do better? :-)
>
The package seems not really very maintained.

>> But it is indeed very poor and limited compared to others like:
>>
>> https://melpa.org/#/cmake-font-lock
>
>This one just adds advanced syntax highlighting, it does not provide
>indentation, etc.
>
Well, it is indeed better than the other. Also the other one covers
indentation decently fine.

But also the implementation of this one is much more complete.

>> and produces some conflicts when interacting.
>
>Those are bugs, because its README says
>
>  This package is designed to be used together with a major mode for
>  editing CMake files.
>
>and then goes on explicitly mentioning Kitware's mode.
>
Actually the problem is that part of the work the package does is
supposed to be implemented in the major mode not in a minor mode. Look
at this issue and the final comments:

https://github.com/Lindydancer/cmake-font-lock/issues/9

It has a similar issue with packages like rainbow.

>> Could we consider to add a native cmake mode to vanilla or contact the
>> Kitware people to add this one to elpa? Or in the worst case to change
>> the name of their package in order to release the name and add a GPL
>> versioned one to elpa?
>
>CMake releases new versions quite often, so an elpa package (not to
>mention a vanilla one) would soon be outdated unless someone (TM)
>commits to keeping it up to date.
>
That's true. But actually the Kitware file supports only the most basic
keywords. Most of the new features, and syntax are not included there
any way.

>I've interacted with the Kitware guys on the distant past and I *guess*
>that they would be glad to put their mode on elpa, but the relicensing
>and paper signing are not straightforward because right now I see 11
>contributors to that source file and most of them are not Kitware
>employees. Isn't there a new elpa repository for non-GNU packages? That
>would make this issue irrelevant.
>