| 1 |
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 |
You have your userbase ;) |
| 22 |
In order to reach as many as possible you could create a news item. Or a |
| 23 |
mailing list post. Ask them on planet.gentoo.org ;) Tell them how good ninja |
| 24 |
performs :) |
| 25 |
Ask them to set the generator to ninja in their make.conf to test if their |
| 26 |
packages still compile. They create bugs for failing packages and you can |
| 27 |
easily hard code good old emake in the specific packages. |
| 28 |
As default there probably should always be emake. IMHO a working build system |
| 29 |
always is better than a fast but potentially broken one :) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> -- |
| 33 |
> Best regards, |
| 34 |
> Michał Górny |
Archives