[RFC libdrm 0/2] Replace the build system with meson

[Marek Olšák]

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Dylan Baker <dylan at pnwbakers.com> wrote:
> Quoting Marek Olšák (2017-03-16 18:53:59)
>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Dylan Baker <dylan at pnwbakers.com> wrote:
>> > Quoting Marek Olšák (2017-03-16 15:36:26)
>> >> Is there a way not to use ninja with meson, because ninja redirects
>> >> all stderr output from gcc to stdout, which breaks many development
>> >> environments that expect errors in stderr?
>> >>
>> >> I'm basically saying that if ninja can't keep gcc errors in stderr, I
>> >> wouldn't like any project that I might be involved in to require ninja
>> >> for building.
>> >>
>> >> Marek
>> >
>> > There is no way to use another backend on Linux, and meson will not support
>> > Make. Ninja is a big part of the appeal here, since it is faster than make is.
>> > Are there particular tools you know don't work with ninja? It seems like in the
>> > 7+ years since ninja came out that someone would have fixed the tools, or that
>> > some stream redirection could be used to fix the problem, "ninja 1>&2"?
>>
>> I actually read some thread about it and the conclusion seemed to be
>> that ninja developers don't care. I have no other option than to
>> believe that ninja was made for automated build bots, not for
>> development.
>>
>> Some editors expect that errors and only errors go to stderr and all
>> other garbage info goes to stdout. This is something I can't change.
>>
>> Marek
>
> And I found this: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ninja-build/4syh2jzXWcI
>
> Which leads me to believe that they would be responsive to a patch, the core
> team just doesn't have a use for it. There is in fact a patch already written
> (linked in that thread), that just needs someone to clean it up and propose it
> for merge.

Well, I guess I can use that. It's still not nice to force some people
to use out-of-tree builds of ninja.

Marek