On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:19:33PM +0300, Dmitry Kozlyuk wrote: > On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 09:41:22 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 09:31:53AM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote: > > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Richardson > [snip] > > > In short, my primary concern is: What could realistically go wrong if the > > > required version of Meson is buggy? > > > > > > Bruce, you have worked for quite a while with Meson/Ninja by now, so > > > perhaps you can assess this risk based on your experience. > > > > > I'd say the risk in this case is small, especially since I see that 0.56 of > > meson is well under way for development and may well be released before > > DPDK 20.11. Generally backwards compatibilty of meson is excellent as they > > have comprehensive test suite for all features. > > > > Rather than any bugginess, my concern was purely requiring people to update > > meson using "pip3", but I suppose that's not really a big deal, and when > > using pip update it defaults to just updating the copy for the local user, > > not system-wide. > > Speaking for Windows, at least twice this year there were incompatibilities > between _minor_ versions of Meson, due to admitted bugs in Meson. However, > IMO this is an argument for using just _exact_ version, not necessarily an old > one. Pip facilitates this better than OS package manager, because developer > controls the version and can easily switch, regardless of distro updates. > Thus, John's upgrade suggestion and transition to pip both look reasonable. >
Seems that meson must be a bit more fragile on windows then, which is a pity (and perhaps their regression tests aren't as good as I thought). On Linux, since version 0.40 I think only one version, 0.47.0, caused an issue for us, which was fixed in 0.47.1. However, having a recommended version to use can work too.
