On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net> wrote: > On Sun, 2 May 2010 09:46:15 -0700, Dan Nicholson <dbn.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Brian, >> >> I'm putting forward this request completely understanding your >> position why you don't want automake and libtool in your project. >> However, I think that mesa has outgrown the static Makefiles approach >> for a number of reasons. For a project that's grown to the complexity >> of mesa, I believe you need something that is more flexible and robust >> than the current system can provide. Eric (and I think Corbin, too) >> has a branch adding automake and libtool to the mesa repo. >> >> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~anholt/mesa/log/?h=automake > > Yeah, I got burned out on that work because the initial change is huge. > My intention for that branch was to get it to the point that it could > replace the static Makefiles and squash-merge it (sadly, the history is > completely unbisectable and has been sloppily rebased a couple of > times.). > > The separate demos repo was a step towards making that work less > intrusive (and because demos in the main repo has bothered me since I > started out packaging Mesa). After that, several of the libraries could > go away, and that branch would be much closer to done. > > I completely agree with the rest of Dan's reasons for using automake. > In particular, it's standard, reliable, well documented, and we have a > lot of expertise in it among Mesa developers. I'm sick of the Mesa > build process for developers and casual followers having to start with > "make clean".
I completely agree with these gentlemen. My automake branch is a bit further than Eric's, but it's more or less invalid now. It could build Gallium DRI drivers though. ~ C. -- When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? ~ Keynes Corbin Simpson <mostawesomed...@gmail.com> _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
