[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 4/8] scons: Don't build osmesa.

[Jose Fonseca]

On 25/03/15 19:35, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 25/03/15 15:21, Jose Fonseca wrote:
>> On 25/03/15 14:53, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>> On 24 March 2015 at 21:16, Jose Fonseca <jfonseca at vmware.com> wrote:
>>>> There doesn't seem much interest on osmesa on Windows, particularly
>>>> classic osmesa.
>>>>
>>>> If there is indeed interest in osmesa on Windows, we should instead
>>>> integrate src/gallium/targets/osmesa into SCons.
>>> Afaict the Octave people still use it. There was a guy in #dri-devel
>>> who was having issues with the Windows build not too long ago [1]
>>>
>>> Iirc the VTK folk are were using osmesa, although I'm not sure if (how
>>> much) Windows support is a thing for them. Hence the presence of the
>>> scons build.
>>>
>>> All of that is more of jfyi rather than feeling sentimental about
>>> nuking it :)
>>> -Emil
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__people.freedesktop.org_-7Ecbrill_dri-2Dlog_-3Fchannel-3Ddri-2Ddevel-26highlight-5Fnames-3Dandy1978-26date-3D2015-2D02-2D26&d=AwIBaQ&c=Sqcl0Ez6M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=zfmBZnnVGHeYde45pMKNnVyzeaZbdIqVLprmZCM2zzE&m=0--RMUucqcy-hAGpX9G5a-U9MF5M607lG9i3Bm4eD2w&s=G-FQcwnoms56_DZd1eCFZAu3K6T9oDhuuqiIVGC7n6o&e=
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the info Emil.
>>
>> The osmesa I removed from scons was the one with classic sw rasterizer.
>>
> That's precisely the one they are using. Although I'll add a note in the
> release notes (update the rest of the docs) so that there is no funny
> surprises :-)
>
>> The osmesa w/ softpipe/llvmpipe is in src/gallium/targets/osmesa , but
>> was never integrated into scons build (just autotools.)
>>
>> I'm OK adding support to build osmesa on Windows with llvmpipe/softpipe,
>> but I don't think there's value in supporting the classic rasterizer --
>> less code that we need to worry about MSVC portability.  I might give it
>> a go when I find some time.
>>
> I see your concern and I'm not trying to force anything on you.
>
>>
>> For the record, there was a point in time where I wanted SCons to build
>> most of Mesa in the hope of replacing autotools, which is why scons
>> build more than just Windows.  But it's a loosing battle.  Nowadays I'm
>> more interested in reducing the SCons scope as much as possible, so
>> there's less stuff for me and everybody else to maintain.
>>
>> (And if there's a build system that could really work across multiple
>> platforms and make everybody happy, my bet would not be scons, but
>> rather cmake.  But I doubt there will ever be agreement or time to take
>> such enterprise anyway.)
>>
> Fwiw if I have to choose between scons and cmake I would go for the
> latter. Yet considering the amount of work/time required, I'd assume
> that fixing the autotools bugs would be the faster route. If you're ok
> with the idea, feel free to submit bugs and I'll check them over.

I'm afraid that getting autotools to work with MSVC would be harder than 
writing a completely new build system from scratch.  MinGW's doable, but 
not MSVC. And we must support MSVC, as MinGW is OK for quick testing has 
too many drawbacks to be used for production drivers.

Jose