[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 00/12] bmake inspired fixes

[Emil Velikov]

On 03/08/15 19:09, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 3 August 2015 at 17:17, Matt Turner <mattst88 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 17 July 2015 at 19:09, Matt Turner <mattst88 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>
>>>>> A few days ago I realised that BSD make (bmake) is available in the
>>>>> Archlinux repos, so I decided to give it a try for drm & mesa.
>>>>>
>>>>> While the former was working (minus a small patch) mesa is not so lucky.
>>>>>
>>>>> This series attempts to remove the GNU make idioms, with the first two
>>>>> being the base essential for a successful build from tarball.
>>>>
>>>> ... why should we care about non-GNU make? GNU make has nice features
>>>> that we want to use and we use them. I don't see the benefit.
>>>>
>>> A few reasons:
>>>  - It will allow the OpenBSD people to use upstream mesa and devote
>>> that time to something more useful ?
>>
>> Mesa builds on OpenBSD already, as far as I know. The build system
>> isn't holding back contributions.
>>
> They use an in-house bmake compatible system rather. So as they hit a
> bug, it's hard to establish if it's due to their build or not. That,
> plus the serious rework they need to do in their build, contributes as
> to why they're not updating mesa as frequently.
> Would be great to spare them those obstacles, even if they choose to
> be slightly different ;-)
> 
>> I still don't follow how making the build system compatible with
>> non-GNU make is beneficial.
>>
> Let try this from another angle. Even if there is zero benefit, do you
> foresee any issues with making it compatible ? Afaics it won't make
> anyone's job harder - I/Jonathan will send a quick every so often and
> things will just work for everyone. Or maybe there is some subtlety
> that I'm missing ?
> 
> As mentioned before - there seems to be only one pattern "at fault",
> plus it's been addressed with the series.
> 
>>>  - Mostly a single pattern/issue/thinko seems to be at fault.
>>>  - The rules already look a bit shaky :-)
>>
>> I don't understand what these mean.
> Imho a handful of the Makefiles in src/mapi src/mesa/ are inconsistent
> (and confusing) comparing to their dri/glx/egl/gallium counterparts.
> 
> The lex/bison/python rules being a good example. With these we provide
> explicit info (expand $<) and provide a more consistent look. If they
> look harder to read/grasp/etc. just say so and I'll update things
> accordingly.
> 
Hi Matt,

Please, state your technical conserns, elaborating a bit on each one, so
that I can try and address them.

I'm still uncertain why you are unhappy with the series - is it because
it starts with "bmake" :P. replacing "$<" with "foo.py" can cause
confusion/issues in the long term, you are planning on introducing some
other GNUmake specific constructs or something else perhaps ?

I would like to get the series in (or a variation) hopefully this month.

Thanks
Emil