Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

[james]

On 02/01/2017 10:40 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 01:37:04AM +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 02:04:06PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
>>> As I said on the bug, the downside is the addition of py3 and ninja as
>>> build time dependencies, but I think the upside (a build system where
>>> we don't have to worry about parallel make issues or portability)
>>> outweighs that.
>> Could you please link or otherwise explain the portability issue?
>
> I'm not talking about a specific instance, just the flexability you get
> with a build system. You let it handle the details of building
> executables, linking libraries, etc.
>
> I have heard from more than one person that the OpenRC makefiles are
> not written well, and I agree, so I've been looking for a build system
> for a while.
>
> I thought about autotools. I'm not really fond of its syntax, and I've
> been told that, to use autotools correctly, I would need to start
> generating manual release tarballs again because I would need to put the
> autotools generated cruft in them.
>
> I'm open to suggestions. I picked meson to experiment with because it
> has a very nice clean syntax.
>
> William
>

'TUP' is the fastest build system of the all? I believe many build
systems leverage or imitate what TUP does. I've read that for hand 
crafting a specific build system, TUP is the most fundamental of the
building blocks. Here are a few links, there are many for your perusal::


http://gittup.org/tup/make_vs_tup.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12622097


I think TUP would really shine in a build system for embedded and 
otherwise constrained build environments (limited resources) but
I have not vetted that theory out, as I usually lean on others
with greater depth of understanding in such matters. Still, from what I 
read, TUP warrants monitoring as new code contributions keep moving this
blazingly fast build system tool forward.


hth,
James