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

  • #31
    Originally posted by rene View Post

    why though? as a user you will not see a difference at all
    Maybe as humour factor since Debian ships obsolete versions of Meson anyway

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by FireBurn View Post
      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
      meson has 786 open issues, so raised bug is unlikely to be served soon
      i know ridiculous bug of combinatorial explosion of library parameter lists ( -l and -L ) generating ninja file of several gigabytes size for project with few dozen of dependencies and i decided to work it around by unfolding every dependency instead of reporting it
      Last edited by pal666; 04 December 2018, 06:59 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Candy View Post
        What took them so long to get the port done ?
        they had to write meson first. you can't fix something in makefile, you have to fix meson itself

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Redfoxmoon View Post
          Contributing performance patches to autotools is the right way to go
          autotools are broken by design

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by SpyroRyder View Post
            Meson is the first good effort to replace Autotools in a lot of projects
            actually, meson is replacement for cmake (which btw replaced autotools in a lot more projects than meson)
            Last edited by pal666; 04 December 2018, 08:06 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by miabrahams View Post
              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.
              in autotools make is not the slowest part. slowest part is shell configure.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by cl333r View Post
                I have to say this, Rust's cargo beats all C/C++ build systems.
                cargo is a toy build system for toy language. and i have to say you never heard of all c/c++ build systems

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by kpedersen View Post
                  My problem is that in 10 years, it is likely going to be awkward to run meson itself (because the world would have moved on to Python 4), let alone use it to build Mesa. A build tool written in C or C++ is always more maintainable.
                  i heard python people learned from python3 fiasco and decided to make no breaking changes in future, like real language

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by miabrahams View Post
                    Although the Meson build files use a Python inspired syntax, they are not evaluated by the Python interpreter.
                    that's actually bad thing. you need special ide support for editing and you can't use your python knowledge

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by discordian View Post
                      Does meson allow you to write re-usable scripts for inclusion in multiple projects?
                      At the time when I explored different build systems, the only choice was either to call python scripts (or other languages, but the argument was at that time to use python as this will be available when meson is). Or to get your functionality upstream (which again, is python code).

                      compare that to CMake or Autotools which use their own scripting languages - those core tools could e re-implemented with any language without any of the custom modules or extensions being affected. With Meson you have to port every functionality, except the DSL files.

                      My CMake scripts can be butt-ugly but I am sure they will work will the end of time, as CMake is incredible pedantic when it comes to that (see their policies). I am also not sure if Meson will ever support the coming C++ Modules correctly, thats a big question for CMake aswell but Mesons response seems that the standard needs to bow to their needs ( https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/issues/4314 ).

                      Just because I could not ask for a clearer statement.

                      Meson dev (later wrote the "remember the fortran" paper):


                      CMake ( https://gitlab.kitware.com/cmake/cmake/issues/18355 ):
                      Well if I understand the paper right, the claim from the CMake gitlab is simply wrong (meaning the person didn't read or understood the paper)

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X