| 1 |
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:54:41AM +0100, Tobias Klausmann wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi! |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2017, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 5 |
> > I have been looking at the meson build system [1] [2], and I like what I |
| 6 |
> > see. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > I have opened an issue on OpenRC's github wrt migrating OpenRC to the |
| 9 |
> > meson build system [3]. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > As I said on the bug, the downside is the addition of py3 and ninja as |
| 12 |
> > build time dependencies, but I think the upside (a build system where |
| 13 |
> > we don't have to worry about parallel make issues or portability) |
| 14 |
> > outweighs that. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > What do folks think here? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Meson isn't even keyworded anywhere but amd64 and x86 and I |
| 19 |
> couldn't find an indication that they care about off-mainstream |
| 20 |
> architectures at all. Yes, it's written in Python as such is more |
| 21 |
> portable than if it were written in C or somesuch, but for a |
| 22 |
> build system, the arch it runs on and targets are more important |
| 23 |
> than for most other programs. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
You are right that meson isn't keyworded anywhere but amd64 and x86, |
| 26 |
and I will ask them about this because If they didn't want to support |
| 27 |
off-mainstream arches this would be a blocker. Not just for OpenRC, but |
| 28 |
for all consumers that convert to it. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
As I said on the upstream bug, this would be a long-term project if it |
| 31 |
goes through. The other blockers would be ninja and the cross build |
| 32 |
issue pointed out earlier at least. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
William |
Archives