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

[Emil Velikov]

On 21 August 2015 at 19:09, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 ?
>
Humble reminder.

If you'd like some objective justification why these patches make
things better, please give me some merits that I can check against.

Alternatively I'll push these within a few days.

Thanks
Emil