Quoting Scott D Phillips (2017-10-16 10:04:45) > Dylan Baker <dy...@pnwbakers.com> writes: > > > Quoting Jakob Bornecrantz (2017-10-14 13:03:14) > > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Dylan Baker <dy...@pnwbakers.com> wrote: > > > > I'm not sure about this approach, we would need a way to add > > > > depends to meson, > > 'add depends' meaning having a way for the build steps themselves to > depend on modifications to Makefile.sources files? If so, I think > there's a pretty good solution in: > > https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/pull/2490 > > It doesn't have anything to do with makefiles or anything, but just adds > a regenerate-the-build-steps dependency on scripts and script arguments > to run_command() that are within the srcdir. I would say it is a bug > that that functionality is missing as it is.
I agree, and if upstream won't take the module approach this is probably the best solution, unless the community decides the duplication is okay in the long term. That's what Xorg did. > > > > > but I'm also worried that calling make adds another dependency > > > > that could be problematic for windows, > > afaict, getting a copy of make on windows isn't really too odious, the > problem is just that using autotools sucks really bad there. > > > > > and I really don't like the idea of having a half-and-half > > > > approach with the sources. > > I agree and many more patches are in order if we go this route. I just > didn't want to do the work of making those if the idea itself didn't > sound good to folks. > > > > > Here's what I've been playing with: > > > > https://github.com/dcbaker/meson/tree/make-import-module > > > > https://github.com/dcbaker/mesa/tree/wip/meson-makefile-sources > > > > > > > > How would you feel about that? > > I would suggest changing the naming from a "Makefile parser" to an > "Automake Makefile parser". That way your parser goes from > very-incomplete to almost-complete for the source format. > > How confident are you that this extension would be accepted in meson? I > got the notion from somewhere that dealing with makefiles is an antigoal > for meson, but maybe that's not right. I'm not extremely confident of anything with meson, upstream can be a bit odd, but I'm more confident of getting a module in than anything else. I think it's pretty close to proposing, but I wanted to get a patch for mesa so I could point to it and say, "look, this is why we need this". What they are extremely adverse to is a make backend, whether they would accept this parser (under any name) I don't know yet, but I'm going to make a heck of an argument for it. > > > > Couldn't you just use the Makefile parser José wrote for the scons > > > build, that would avoid running make and waiting for a new version of > > > Meson. Or is there something it is lacking? > > > > > > We could start out with our own Makefile parser and then move onto one > > > in Meson once it is upstreamed and that version of meson is commonly > > > available? > > > > > > Cheers, Jakob. > > > > In the short term I don't know how much it really hurts to duplicate > > the sources in meson vs reading the makefiles, > > That's the question really. If nobody cares about the duplication, then > this patch or any other like it probably isn't worth it. > > I've seen a lot of patch reviews with "you forgot to update build system > X" though. I think it's worth our collective time to consolidate the > number of places that an average patch needs to touch build system > configuration. (Without turning them all into Frankenstein build systems > obviously). > > > I also haven't had a chance to look at what Jose did in scons, but if > > upstreaming fails that is probably a good starting point. I'd like to > > try to get something upstream rather than hacking around meson, since > > that has been very successful in the past. I should also point out > > that meson's LLVM handling is due for a pretty major overhaul (patches > > waiting more review and merge), and that we really want that support > > anyway (among other things meson's LLVM inserts -L/usr/lib into your > > linker args, and as of 0.43 lacks static/dynamic linking > > options. There are also some features that are in 0.43 (we currently > > support back to at least 0.42, I haven't tested further back than > > that) that we will need to work on windows (our workarounds involve > > using touch). There's also still a lot of work to do to get our meson > > build system up to the quality of our autotools and scons build > > systems, so I think we have some time before we need to worry really > > hard about it. > > > > Dylan > > _______________________________________________ > > mesa-dev mailing list > > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
signature.asc
Description: signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
