Hello Richard, On 21.03.22 17:23, Richard Hughes wrote: > On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 at 15:49, Nico Huber <nic...@gmx.de> wrote: >>> Also I understand Meson already got into v1.2? I thought the next version >>> is based on the previous? >> Yes, but I hope that doesn't mean we can't revert problems :) > > I don't think adding a smiley face makes it any less insulting to the > people that added, and *continue to maintain* the meson feature.
sorry if the context offended you. I meant this rather generally: We should be open to discuss such things. In the Meson case, I'd be happy about any solution that avoids accidental use of Meson for releases, i.e. when nobody tested if it's working correctly in a given environ- ment. > >> The `meson.build` made it into v1.2, that is right but turned out to >> cause more trouble than was expected. OS package maintainers quickly >> adopted it without any second thought. > > Have you pondered why that might be? OS package maintainers usually > don't change the way they build packages without a good reason. I assume they got used to configuration systems like autotools/cmake/ Meson and use them by default if the necessary files are around. I consider not using such a system the exception today. > >> And then all their packages had >> issues because the `meson.build` did some things wrong (no version in- >> formation in the binary for instance, no man page in the package, CLI >> options not working). > > Are there any issues outstanding? How should we know? Nobody is taking the time to really test the Meson setup on Meson-supported platforms (except Linux). Or maybe somebody is and doesn't tell us. The issues that were fixed so far were only iden- tified when quirky binaries made it to the end users already. Fixing issues is the easy part, one needs to find them first though. And if that happens too late, it creates unnecessary work for developers and package maintainers. There is also one big general issue: we need to maintain two build systems now. We can't use GNU make only, because nobody knows what the requirements of the Meson users are. And we can't use Meson only, because nobody knows if and how it works on all the platforms suppor- ted by the Makefile. Nico > All this talk of "removing things" > does not give me the warm-and-fuzzies for building things on top of > the flashrom project. _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list -- flashrom@flashrom.org To unsubscribe send an email to flashrom-le...@flashrom.org
