<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> </head> <body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word"> <div class="WordSection1"> Hi Daniel,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Okay, makes sense that you don’t want to have to repeat the dependencies’ builds for every CI test. I’m not arguing that you should – it was just more a thought experiment to see whether riding Meson subprojects is a reasonable idea for establishing a development environment.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I get your point that that can become a deep rabbit hole. But it seems that you didn’t have any need to build LLVM and similar just to support the hand-built copy of Mesa that’s in the CI. Is there some reason why a deeper set of transitive dependencies would be needed using Meson subprojects than when building by hand? Seems like I could probably just mimic what you’ve done. Maybe your point is that the CI is a very constrained environment that’s known not to need ATI or llvmpipe, but a general developer situation with physical machines would?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> -Matt<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt"> <div> <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"> From: Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2024 10:17 AM To: Hoosier, Matt <Matt.Hoosier@garmin.com> Cc: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.com>; Marius Vlad <marius.vlad@collabora.com>; wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: Ways to test Weston during development (Re: Full-motion zero-copy screen capture in Weston)<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <div> Hi Matt, On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 at 15: 30, Hoosier, Matt <Matt. Hoosier@ garmin. com> wrote: > Would Meson’s dependency wrapping capabilities be a viable solution here? I think that most of Weston’s dependencies that have aggressive version <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> jQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Hi Matt,<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <pre><o:p> </o:p></pre> <pre>On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 at 15:30, Hoosier, Matt <<a href="mailto:Matt.Hoosier@garmin.com">Matt.Hoosier@garmin.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre> <pre>> Would Meson’s dependency wrapping capabilities be a viable solution here? I think that most of Weston’s dependencies that have aggressive version requirements are themselves also Meson projects.<o:p></o:p></pre> <pre>><o:p> </o:p></pre> <pre>> The Weston CI configuration builds a bunch of its dependencies (Mesa, libdrm, libwayland …) manually. I wonder why Meson wrapping was not used for this?<o:p></o:p></pre> <pre><o:p> </o:p></pre> <pre>We don't want to rebuild Mesa every time. We could've built it as a<o:p></o:p></pre> <pre>subproject and cached it, but it didn't seem to offer much any<o:p></o:p></pre> <pre>advantage over just installing it into the system.<o:p></o:p></pre> <pre><o:p> </o:p></pre> <pre>We could probably add some subprojects, but you'd probably end up<o:p></o:p></pre> <pre>pulling in more components as well - e.g. if you want to run Mesa with<o:p></o:p></pre> <pre>its software renderer or the AMD drivers, you'll also need to use LLVM<o:p></o:p></pre> <pre>- and at what point does your easy subproject build turn into, well, a<o:p></o:p></pre> <pre>full distribution?<o:p></o:p></pre> <pre><o:p> </o:p></pre> <pre>I guess one thing we could do is to jazz the CI build up a little so<o:p></o:p></pre> <pre>it's easier to pull the OCI and run it inside a toolbox, as well as<o:p></o:p></pre> <pre>reuse those scripts locally.<o:p></o:p></pre> <pre><o:p> </o:p></pre> <pre>Cheers,<o:p></o:p></pre> <pre>Daniel<o:p></o:p></pre> </div> </div> </div> </body> </html>