On 03/08/15 19:09, Emil Velikov wrote: > On 3 August 2015 at 17:17, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On 17 July 2015 at 19:09, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hello all, >>>>> >>>>> A few days ago I realised that BSD make (bmake) is available in the >>>>> Archlinux repos, so I decided to give it a try for drm & mesa. >>>>> >>>>> While the former was working (minus a small patch) mesa is not so lucky. >>>>> >>>>> This series attempts to remove the GNU make idioms, with the first two >>>>> being the base essential for a successful build from tarball. >>>> >>>> ... why should we care about non-GNU make? GNU make has nice features >>>> that we want to use and we use them. I don't see the benefit. >>>> >>> A few reasons: >>> - It will allow the OpenBSD people to use upstream mesa and devote >>> that time to something more useful ? >> >> Mesa builds on OpenBSD already, as far as I know. The build system >> isn't holding back contributions. >> > They use an in-house bmake compatible system rather. So as they hit a > bug, it's hard to establish if it's due to their build or not. That, > plus the serious rework they need to do in their build, contributes as > to why they're not updating mesa as frequently. > Would be great to spare them those obstacles, even if they choose to > be slightly different ;-) > >> I still don't follow how making the build system compatible with >> non-GNU make is beneficial. >> > Let try this from another angle. Even if there is zero benefit, do you > foresee any issues with making it compatible ? Afaics it won't make > anyone's job harder - I/Jonathan will send a quick every so often and > things will just work for everyone. Or maybe there is some subtlety > that I'm missing ? > > As mentioned before - there seems to be only one pattern "at fault", > plus it's been addressed with the series. > >>> - Mostly a single pattern/issue/thinko seems to be at fault. >>> - The rules already look a bit shaky :-) >> >> I don't understand what these mean. > Imho a handful of the Makefiles in src/mapi src/mesa/ are inconsistent > (and confusing) comparing to their dri/glx/egl/gallium counterparts. > > The lex/bison/python rules being a good example. With these we provide > explicit info (expand $<) and provide a more consistent look. If they > look harder to read/grasp/etc. just say so and I'll update things > accordingly. > Hi Matt,
Please, state your technical conserns, elaborating a bit on each one, so that I can try and address them. I'm still uncertain why you are unhappy with the series - is it because it starts with "bmake" :P. replacing "$<" with "foo.py" can cause confusion/issues in the long term, you are planning on introducing some other GNUmake specific constructs or something else perhaps ? I would like to get the series in (or a variation) hopefully this month. Thanks Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
