Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mesa Developers Move Closer To Dropping Autotools Build System In Favor Of Meson

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mesa Developers Move Closer To Dropping Autotools Build System In Favor Of Meson

    Phoronix: Mesa Developers Move Closer To Dropping Autotools Build System In Favor Of Meson

    Mesa developers have been discussing on and off in recent months about dropping their Autotools build system support considering there is also the SCons build support, Android build system support, and most notably is the increasingly mature Meson build system coverage...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...Kill-Autotools

  • #2
    unpopular opinion: meson sucks, this wild west of build systems really get's annoying, more difficult than ever to keep things build, especially cross compiled and such. really annoying for barely anything. slightly related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNipdcUh7ZE

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by rene View Post
      unpopular opinion: meson sucks, this wild west of build systems really get's annoying, more difficult than ever to keep things build, especially cross compiled and such. really annoying for barely anything. slightly related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNipdcUh7ZE
      meson seems to get more things right than any other build system.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by rene View Post
        unpopular opinion: meson sucks, this wild west of build systems really get's annoying, more difficult than ever to keep things build, especially cross compiled and such. really annoying for barely anything. slightly related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNipdcUh7ZE
        Projects are moving to it, because it's easier and quicker than autotools. If you do have a real issue or bug with meson, rather than just hearsay purely because it's not what you're used to - raise a bug

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by FireBurn View Post
          Projects are moving to it, because it's easier and quicker than autotools [...]
          What took them so long to get the port done ? It's not as if we hear about Mesa Meson Port for the first time here. Articles are spread over months now.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by FireBurn View Post

            Projects are moving to it, because it's easier and quicker than autotools. If you do have a real issue or bug with meson, rather than just hearsay purely because it's not what you're used to - raise a bug
            Try cross compiling a package, also it is so amazing, that libinput additionally needs ninja or so, ..! and then you have already to deal wit two annoying build "tools" – plus each build system has other --enable-some-feature option and such. The libinput build is so hilarious now, that I will probably make a dedicated video documenting this mess sometime soon. No wonder that desktop Linux is not progressing, if half of the time is spend re-implementing the build system of each package that already worked for for a decade or more.

            Comment


            • #7
              Contributing performance patches to autotools is the right way to go, but there's no fame and fortune in that, there lets make 1^infinity more shitty build systems, not to mention bloated requirements

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Candy View Post
                What took them so long to get the port done ? It's not as if we hear about Mesa Meson Port for the first time here. Articles are spread over months now.
                One of the reasons may be that they had to wait for most linux distributions to adopt the meson build system and adapt their packaging. Now that the mesa meson build is widespread enough at least across the most popular linux distributions they can start to think about removing autotools.

                Related: https://lists.freedesktop.org/archiv...er/210956.html

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by rene View Post

                  Try cross compiling a package, also it is so amazing, that libinput additionally needs ninja or so, ..! and then you have already to deal wit two annoying build "tools" – plus each build system has other --enable-some-feature option and such. The libinput build is so hilarious now, that I will probably make a dedicated video documenting this mess sometime soon. No wonder that desktop Linux is not progressing, if half of the time is spend re-implementing the build system of each package that already worked for for a decade or more.
                  Meson builds via Ninja in the same way Autotools builds via Make so yes its an extra tool but so interconnected that its not worth worrying about. Also as an aside, Meson is the first good effort to replace Autotools in a lot of projects. Some projects, like Mesa, have had multiple build systems for different platforms but havent until now tried to remove autotools despite all of its problems.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Redfoxmoon View Post
                    Contributing performance patches to autotools is the right way to go, but there's no fame and fortune in that, there lets make 1^infinity more shitty build systems, not to mention bloated requirements
                    It's not just about performance. It's simple to use, easy to read and write. Even if Autotools supported Ninja and Meson didn't, I would choose Meson.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X