Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Jakob Bornecrantz <wallbra...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net> wrote: >>> Dylan Baker <dy...@pnwbakers.com> writes: >>>> Results >>>> autotools : sh -c 535.34s user 30.33s system 310% cpu 3:02.05 total >>>> meson : sh -c 136.58s user 11.98s system 372% cpu 39.895 total >>> >>> I just want to point at these numbers again. meson is so transformative >>> for your normal build/test cycles that it's worth it even if we have to >>> duplicate source lists. I know these aren't quite representative >>> because of all of automake's checks that haven't been done for meson, >>> but here's what we had for the X server conversion: >>> >>> autotools: meson: >>> no-op build 0.83 0.49 >>> touch Makefile.am 1.28 >>> touch configure.ac 16.68 >>> touch meson.build 2.92 >>> clean ccache build 16.74 1.44 >>> clean build 52.24 27.84 >>> >>> Hopefully we can replace two of our build systems (hopefully android and >>> scons?) with this one, and then I think it will definitely be less >>> developer build system maintenance, even with duplicated source lists. >>> I'd be curious to hear what the vmware folks would need from meson in >>> order to drop scons, and I'd be willing to put in a good bit of work to >>> make it happen. >>> >>> Additionally, meson doesn't need the .hs listed in its source lists, so >>> these meson.builds are actually more verbose than we need and would drop >>> a huge source of our "fix up the build system" patches for automake's >>> stupid distcheck. >> >> Wasn't lacking distcheck support one of the arguments against moving >> to only a scons build when this was brought up all those years ago? >> Does Meson provide something similar, or do people just now get all >> of the source from git nowadays? > > Maybe that discussion was a before my time (or maybe I've just > forgotten) but I did all of the work to make "make dist" work in > ~2013. Building the tarballs and generating files like configure makes > sense given the workings and limitations of autotools. I'd definitely > be opposed to not making the tarballs with autotools' dist target > because since we've switched we haven't shipped a broken tarball once, > which was a common occurrence previously. > > With switching to Meson though, there's not the same need to generate > all sorts of things and include them in the tarball. We'd add > dependencies on python, mako, flex, and bison that we don't currently > require to build from a tarball, but I think that's an acceptable > cost. > > Just to preempt the question: as a (source-based) distribution > maintainer, I'm against just getting the code from git. There's lots > of distro infrastructure in place to mirror files and not any that I'm > aware of to handle git repos.
Yeah. You still want tarballs, you just want the tarballs to be basically a snapshot of git so that everybody's using the same build system.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
