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

[Eric Anholt]

Dylan Baker <dylan at pnwbakers.com> writes:

> [ Unknown signature status ]
> Quoting Jose Fonseca (2017-03-24 06:42:18)
>> 
>> I tend to disagree.  While we can't avoid a transitory period, when we 
>> embark on another build system (Meson or something else) I think we 
>> should aim at 1) ensure such tool can indeed _completely_ replace at 
>> least _one_ existing build system, 2) and aim at migration quickly.
>> 
>> Otherwise we'll just end up with yet another build system, yet another 
>> way builds can fail, with some developers stuck on old build systems 
>> because it works, or because the new build system quite doesn't work.
>> 
>> And this is from (painful) experience.
>
> I tend to agree. Meson is *nice* because it's faster than autotools, but it's
> simplicity and the fact that it works for windows and *nix systems is one of the
> best features. Having fewer build systems is better than more.
>
> We had hoped that we could do one release with both autotools and meson, to give
> some of the fast moving linux distributions (Arch, Fedora, etc) a chance to help
> us iron out bugs, especially for pacakgers. I think it is important though to
> make a commitment for exactly when we're going to either migrate completely to
> meson, or abandon the attempt and revert it.
>
>> So I think we should identify stake holders soon, collect requirements 
>> (OSes platforms, etc), make sure the prospective tool meets them, have 
>> all stakeholders collaborate on a prototype, them embark on mass migration.
>> 
>> That is, if this fails, let it fail early.  If it succeeds, may it 
>> succeed early.  Anything but a slow death / zombie life.
>
> I have a branch that builds intel's Vulkan driver, I'm actively working to get
> intel's i965 dri driver and llvmpipe building and send that out as an RFC to
> mesa-dev. That should give us enough of mesa to evaluate the build system I
> hope (Since it touches all of the major mesa components [classic, gallium,
> neither]).
>
> If other people are interested in collaborating I'd be happy to push the branch
> sooner so that others can look at it.
>
> I also think it's worth talking to Eric (who said he's porting X to meson),
> Daniel Stone (who has patches to port weston to meson), and Peter Hutterer (who
> has patches to port libinput to meson). If they're serious about seeing those
> land meson is even more appealing, since it would be a single build system that
> all of the *nix graphics stack would be moving towards, and would mean that we
> wouldn't have an "Autotools for xorg", "meson for weston and libinput", "cmake for
> piglit", and "<other build system> for mesa".

My desire is to push enough of X.org to Meson that I can actually do CI
of the X Server.  Right now CI is not really tractable on Travis because
autogen.sh of all the dependencies takes too long.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/attachments/20170324/c0c31666/attachment-0001.sig>