[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 01/15] mesa: Add toplevel Android.mk

Michel Dänzer michel at daenzer.net
Mon Aug 8 02:29:00 PDT 2011

On Son, 2011-08-07 at 13:14 +0900, Chia-I Wu wrote: 
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Chad Versace <chad at chad-versace.us> wrote:
> > On 08/05/2011 05:41 AM, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Chad Versace <chad at chad-versace.us> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The entirety of the Android project --- libc, webkit, the window manager,
> >>> *everything* --- exists in a single source tree [1]. And that source tree is
> >>> built with a single, non-recursive invocation of make. Every time I say that, I
> >>> find it hard to believe myself, so I'll say it again: The entirety of the
> >>> Android OS, all core libraries and apps, are built with a single, non-recursive
> >>> invocation of make. (The kernel is the special exception to this
> >>> all-encompassing build). The final build artifact is a bootable iso image.
> >>>
> >>> [1] http://android.git.kernel.org/
> >>
> >> Looking at all those git repos, wouldn't this be more appropriate as
> >> an android project? platform/external/mesa or something?
> >
> > Mesa already belongs to the Android x86 tree [1] as platform/external/mesa. (The
> > Android x86 project is a fork that closely mirrors upstream Android). It also
> > exists as such in some private trees.
> >
> > [1] http://git.android-x86.org/
> >
> >> I haven't
> >> seen any Android.mk files show up in freetype or expat or anything
> >> like that. In the same way, mesa doesn't carry a debian folder even
> >> though that's how debian and ubuntu build mesa. Certainly if there are
> >> fixes to the existing build infrastructure that help get mesa built on
> >> android, that should be done, but I don't see why we should carry the
> >> android build bits in upstream mesa.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dan
> >
> > Dan, you make a strong point. There's no sense in cluttering Mesa with
> > additional makefiles, at least not now. Other projects do not do that for
> > Android, and Mesa doesn't even do it for beloved Debian. The best approach would
> > be to maintain the Android makefiles in a separate branch, perhaps even in a
> > personal repo.
> I do not have a strong motivation to upstream Android support because
>  - it requires changes to Android framework
>  - it introduces yet another build system to Mesa
> I said this a few months back on mesa-user or -dev when asked.
> But generally, I think the not cluttering Mesa with another build
> system is debatable.  I know I conflict with myself here, but if
> someone ports Mesa to arguably the most widely used OS and would like
> to upstream it, should we shut it down because the OS _requires_ its
> own build system?  Incidentally, gstreamer has Android.mk upstream.

Will a single set of Android.mk files work for all potentially relevant
Android trees?

> > To fix the existing build infrastructure to support Android, I would like to
> > extract source lists for some targets into a shared makefile, similiar to what
> > has been done with src/mesa/sources.mak. Jose suggested this, and I think this
> > is the best way to continue.
> Yes, that surely will make the out-of-tree port be more future proof.
> I think we can make SCons parses the source list too.

That would be awesome.

Earthling Michel Dänzer           |                   http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast         |          Debian, X and DRI developer

More information about the mesa-dev mailing list