Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Martin Vaeth <martin@×××××.de>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: is multi-core really worth it?
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 10:07:43
Message-Id: ov3i8l$4pp$1@blaine.gmane.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it? by David Haller
1 David Haller <gentoo@×××××××.de> wrote:
2 > autotools is _by far_the best both from a users and a packagers view.
3
4 I do not agree. Its main advantage is that it is compatible with
5 most existing unix systems (but I am already not so sure whether
6 this also holds if you also want to compile for windows, powerpc,
7 etc.)
8
9 > cmake [...] qmake
10
11 I agree, these are horrible. The best build system currently
12 appears to be meson.
13
14 > equivalent to "./configure --help"
15
16 For meson, it is "cat meson_options.txt", and there is a clear
17 distinction between general options and project specific ones.
18
19 > transparent and easily hackable
20
21 Hacking autotools is a nightmare: Things are often hidden in
22 subprojects, sometimes combined with project specific hacks,
23 generating/updating necessary configure files somewhere within the
24 projects tree etc.
25 And after each change you have to run autoreconf, often with
26 compatibility problems of autoconf/automake/gettext/... versions etc.
27
28 With meson, there is an absolutely strict separation between
29 the distributed files and the generated/output files which are
30 always in a fresh dir (and thus are _always_ produced).
31 When hacking up, you need to modify only the *.meson files
32 and do not have to worry about re-generating any other data.
33
34 This sounds like I am a meson fanboy. I am not; actually, I dislike
35 a lot of its design decisions. But compared to autotools, cmake,
36 and qmake, it did a lot of things right.

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: is multi-core really worth it? David Haller <gentoo@×××××××.de>