Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: cmake + ninja vs autotools

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 02:52:33 +0100
Francesco Riosa <vivo75@×××××.com> wrote:
>
> In my user opinion this has no place in a ebuild unless upstream
> clearly say to use (or evidently use) ninja as it main generator.

I think Gentoo deviates from upstreams fairly considerably at times. I
see this as case where Gentoo can help facility things to upstream.
Maybe they haven't the time to test, etc.

Current example
https://sourceforge.net/p/firebird/mailman/firebird-devel/thread/assp.04935012e0.20171116111219.18e86899%40wlt.obsidian-studios.com/#msg36117925

> In cases where ninja is considered (by upstream) the best option,
> Michael suggestion to make it overridable is a very wise one.
> In that case, please also remember to depend on ninja

I do not think that is necessary unless it bypasses this

case ${CMAKE_MAKEFILE_GENERATOR} in
        emake)
                DEPEND="sys-devel/make"
                ;;
        ninja)
                DEPEND="dev-util/ninja"
                ;;


> Since other emails (by Christoph and Brian) in this thread make
> evident that it's not a drop in replacement,  fixing it in the eclass
> seem a bad idea, but that probably should be reconsidered when ninja
> become more capable.

Only 2 thus far does not sound like most things would have issues.
Maybe worth a bug to track stuff that builds fine and things that fail.
Could use the math alone to make a final call. More packages fail,
stick with make. if only a few, switch to ninja and have those stick
with the slow make.

Either way up to others. I am just passing on whats going on in many
other FOSS projects. Ninja is most of the speed of meson less configure
time savings.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.