| 1 |
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 01:37:04AM +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 02:04:06PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > As I said on the bug, the downside is the addition of py3 and ninja as |
| 4 |
> > build time dependencies, but I think the upside (a build system where |
| 5 |
> > we don't have to worry about parallel make issues or portability) |
| 6 |
> > outweighs that. |
| 7 |
> Could you please link or otherwise explain the portability issue? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I'm not talking about a specific instance, just the flexability you get |
| 10 |
with a build system. You let it handle the details of building |
| 11 |
executables, linking libraries, etc. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I have heard from more than one person that the OpenRC makefiles are |
| 14 |
not written well, and I agree, so I've been looking for a build system |
| 15 |
for a while. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I thought about autotools. I'm not really fond of its syntax, and I've |
| 18 |
been told that, to use autotools correctly, I would need to start |
| 19 |
generating manual release tarballs again because I would need to put the |
| 20 |
autotools generated cruft in them. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I'm open to suggestions. I picked meson to experiment with because it |
| 23 |
has a very nice clean syntax. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
William |
Archives