[PATCH rendercheck 0/5] Convert to meson.

[Pekka Paalanen]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 23:40:34 +0200
walter harms <wharms at bfs.de> wrote:

> Am 24.03.2017 22:13, schrieb Mark Kettenis:
> >> From: Eric Anholt <eric at anholt.net>
> >> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:17:45 -0700
> >>
> >> Having bitten off a bit more than I can chew in 3 days with the X
> >> Server (hw/xfree86/sdksyms.c is the worst), I decided to take a quick
> >> pass at converting a project that's my own fault.  
> > 
> > Seems I missed some discussion somewhere...
> > 
> > While I understand your frustrations with autoconf, moving to build
> > infrastructure that relies on tools like Python and Ninja would have
> > serious consequences for the way we integrate X into OpenBSD.  We
> > build the entire base OS, which includes X, with tools that are part
> > of the base OS.  That would become pretty much impossible if various X
> > projects go this way.

> > 
> > You can probably cut quite a bit of time from the autoconf configure
> > script run time by removing silly checks like checking for standard C
> > headers and such.  
> 
> 
> I do not like the idea either. Autotools are far from perfekt but do
> there job and you do not need more that the macros provided what you
> can get from freedektop git.

Hi,

so there are people who want better but cannot make autotools builds
better, and there are people who want to stick to autotools. Since the
former people seem to be doing the majority of the software development
work in the projects in question, how about the latter people taking
all these Meson messages as an ultimatum: projects will switch to Meson
unless someone can provide patches that implement the same benefits
with autotools.

Of course I cannot talk on behalf of anyone, so please consider these
caveats in my trolling:
- I did not specify what "the same benefits" are.
- I cannot promise the patches to improve autotools will be accepted
  even if you could write them.
- I sincerely doubt the possibility of improving autotools that much.

My main point here is:

Rather than screaming bloody murder you cannot do this, please provide
an alternative solution at least for evaluation. Obviously people
reaching for Meson were not able to find another way and switching to a
whole another build system is a last resort after much suffering
already.

While suggesting that autotools can be improved as much as Meson would
help the people who want to go with Meson, you are also dismissing
Meson developers as people who didn't do their homework before
starting a new thing. Please also consider that.

And last, in case you lose your battle, not all is lost: if you are so
fundamentally concerned about Python, then you can re-implement Meson
in C or any other language you prefer. From what I hear, Meson has been
intentionally designed to reasonably allow that (e.g. the configuration
language is not Python).


Thanks,
pq

ps. This comment is from someone who has not even built anything yet
with Meson so is not attached to Meson, but who is frustrated at
autotools for its fundamental structure and slowness.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20170327/78e69154/attachment.sig>