| 1 |
On 06/08/2015 02:01 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dnia 2015-06-08, o godz. 12:46:42 |
| 3 |
> hasufell <hasufell@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On 06/07/2015 05:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> Hello, developers. |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>> [...] |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> It's not clear to me how the transition should look like. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> Are you suggesting Ninja to be the new default or do you want to switch |
| 13 |
>> per-packages after having tested them? |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> If the former, then we need a tinderbox-run. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> The latter. We don't have the resources to do the former properly, |
| 18 |
> and the number of packages relying on GNU make is too large. Some |
| 19 |
> ebuilds will also need more extensive changes. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I'm not sure if it makes sense to add additional complexity, but another |
| 23 |
approach could be done similar to the git shallow clone situation... as |
| 24 |
in: the ebuild wouldn't say which Makefile generator to use, but which |
| 25 |
ones work. The default would be: all work. That will expose ninja bugs |
| 26 |
to our bugtracker. |
Archives