Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: cmake + ninja vs autotools
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 00:51:46
Message-Id: assp.05027afbcb.20171124195132.5a0137bb@wlt.obsidian-studios.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: cmake + ninja vs autotools by Peter Stuge
1 On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 00:20:38 +0000
2 Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote:
3
4 > William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
5 > > I cannot understand why systems get faster, yet configure seems to
6 > > take the same amount of time and is super slow.
7 >
8 > The generated configure scripts can be fork intensive, which is still
9 > fairly expensive.
10 >
11 > But I think the problem is more with poorly written configure source,
12 > which is the argument about mastering..
13
14 Not sure what can be done for minimal ones.
15
16 Meson 1.20s
17 https://travis-ci.org/Obsidian-StudiosInc/entrance/builds/291848344#L1033
18
19 Before I switched to meson
20 Configure/autotools 5.52s
21 https://travis-ci.org/Obsidian-StudiosInc/entrance/builds/270985567#L963
22
23 Original configure I dropped for meson
24 https://git.enlightenment.org/misc/entrance.git/tree/configure.ac
25
26
27 Or uber minimal, can't get much smaller still 5.20s
28 https://travis-ci.org/Obsidian-StudiosInc/asspr#L165
29 https://github.com/Obsidian-StudiosInc/asspr/blob/master/configure.ac
30
31 #secondsmatter :)
32
33 > > On small projects configure can take longer than compile...
34 > > Configure is my main gripe against make/autotools. Plus all the
35 > > other stuff, auto-reconf, autogen, etc.
36 >
37 > configure having zero dependencies is the killer feature compared
38 > to all other options. The tight integration between configure and
39 > cross-toolchains is also a very strong point.
40
41 The dependency aspect I agree with 100%. I think even cmake has more.
42 Meson requires python, so that alone has a big dependency chain. Which
43 some what surprises me so many with libraries are going that route. I
44 guess they figure it is not core, python likely to be present.
45
46 Or who cares about end users, its all about saving devs time, no clue.
47 #mesonbandwagon
48
49 > > The larger the project, the slower configure can be.
50 >
51 > Doesn't have to be, but it's easy to write poor configure source and
52 > difficult to write good source.
53
54 I would assume then most are poorly written, as I have yet to see a
55 fast configure. Beyond say the one for asspr.
56
57 --
58 William L. Thomson Jr.

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: cmake + ninja vs autotools Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: cmake + ninja vs autotools Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se>