[Mesa-dev] Lets talk about autotools

[Emil Velikov]

On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 17:49, Dylan Baker <dylan at pnwbakers.com> wrote:
>
> Quoting Emil Velikov (2018-12-03 07:54:38)
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 17:44, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I can see why people may opt to not use or maintain the autotools build.
> > > Although I would kindly ask that we do not remove it just yet.
> > >
> > > In Mesa, we have different parts not used by different teams. As such
> > > we tend to remove stuff when nobody is around to maintain it anymore.
> > >
> > > That said, I'm planning to continue maintaining it and would appreciate
> > > if we keep it in-tree.
> > >
> > > As people may be concerned about bugreports and alike we can trivially
> > > add a warning (as configure is invoked) to forwards any issues to my
> > > email. Additionally (or alternatively) we can have an autotools bugzilla
> > > category with me as the default assignee.
> > >
> >
> > Seems like I failed to make things clear enough with earlier message.
> >
> > There is _no_ expectation for anyone to touch or even look at autotools.
> > Hence, my suggestion to have configure.ac point people to me in case of issues.
> >
> > If people have CI that uses it - feel free to drop it.
> >
>
> I've tried to stay out of this discussion, because everyone knows my opinion,
> and I feel I don't have much to add, however...
>
> >
> > That said, many have asked why I'd go through the pain of maintaining it:
> >  - Most Linux distributions have switched, but there'still a few outstanding
> >  - Non Linux distributions have not switched
>
> Haiku has at least :)
>
\o/

> >  - The meson build is missing features, relative the autotools one
>
> The only feature that I know that meson does not have relative to autotools is
> the gl mangling stuff (which is intentional, we'll add it if someone shows up
> with a need for it). Everything else is either intentionally not implemented
> (GLX TLS toggling for example, which meson hardcodes on for OSes that support
> it, and off for those that don't).
>
On top of the TLS and symbol mangling (for which I agree) there is:

 - no CrOS support
 - static/shared mesa (or at least parts of) - Kitware guys are still using it
 - non-static gallium targets - yes it's intentionally 'hidden' in configure.ac
 - disable direct glx - non linux people use this

I understand the reluctance on the latter two, yet leaving CrOS and
Kitware in the cold seems strange.

> >  - I've been approached by individuals, who cannot quite yet use meson
>
> At this point we've been very clear of our intentions to move to meson, as Matt
> said I have worked very hard to resolve any issues developers and users have had
> (and have spent a lot of time booting VM's and fixing meson and mesa's meson
> build on non-linux OSes) or reported, but we can't resolve issues that aren't
> reported. If people are having issues using meson and they're not filing a bug
> with meson or with mesa, or mailing the list, or getting on IRC, there is
> nothing we can do for them, and at some point they need to speak up, or accept
> things.
>
As the Mesa community grows, the amount of discussions/patches we
produce is quite intimidating.

Over the years, I've been reaching out to distributions and
maintainers, many of which doing this as a hobby, to ease their mind.

Your point is valid - issues should be brought forward. Although
without encouragement things are hard sometimes.

Thanks
-Emil