Re: [Geeqie-devel] Build for Geeqie

[Ian Zimmerman]

On 2016-11-19 08:55, Greg Troxel wrote:

> In the particular case I'm referring, the shiny things that replaced
> autotools was scons, and it's still causing problems, even years later.

Can you share some more details?  What build/host/target triple?  C, C++
or some other language?  Executable or shared library?

-- 
Please *no* private Cc: on mailing lists and newsgroups
Personal signed mail: please _encrypt_ and sign
Don't clear-text sign: http://cr.yp.to/smtp/8bitmime.html

--
___
Geeqie-devel mailing list
Geeqie-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geeqie-devel

Re: [Geeqie-devel] Build for Geeqie

[Roger]

> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 08:44:13AM +, Russel Winder wrote:
>On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 14:58 -0500, Roger wrote:
>> I have used AutoTools for my or others' projects as well in the past,
>> and find??
>> AutoTools quite stable, albeit sometimes cryptic to configure at
>> times.
>> 
>> I've tried educating myself with CMake, but found only low-level
>> documentation??
>> packaged with or available via CMake's website.All CMake's other
>> third party??
>> documentation costs, or are supposedly inadequate.Unfortunately or??
>> fortunately, CMake is still unusable at my end of the user
>> spectrum.As to??
>> Python being popular due to multi-platform use (and slow when
>> compared to??
>> C/C++/Bash Scripting); CMake is similar, providing cross-platform
>> use.
>
>The same is also true of Autotools, no nice documentation and way too
>low level, So CMake is at least a step up.

Autotools does offer a lot of documentation, however it is quite lengthy and 
seems to require additional lifetimes for reading and studying.  (e.g.  
Autotools A Practioner's Guide to GNU Autoconf, Automake, and Libtool By John 
Calcote, 2010; and the GNU Autoconf Manual offered in many formats such as 
HTML, ASCII Text, PDF, PostScript, ...)

>I do not see the logical connection between Python being slow compared
>to C++ and CMake.

Try programming using limited resources.  You'll quickly find C/C++ and likely 
most scripting preceeding Python to be much less resource intensive.  (Except 
for likely BASIC.)  No worries, many do not even obviously see this slowing 
effect, due to always having the fastest computers at their finger tips.  ;-)

...

>OK so you do not like Python. I'm afraid that is your problem.


>But I get the message: total lack of interest in anything other than
>Autotools.
>
>I am now sorry I even mentioned the idea of upgrading to a more modern
>approach to build.

... still quite busy learning Autotools here. ;-)

I personally would rather struggle a bit; versus forgetting all of my past 
lessons learned and getting spoiled and always relying on faster, more power 
consuming computers.  But then again, I do not get much time for coding 
nowadays except for Winters; although I am one of those always building (& 
sometimes) packing the software for distributions.

Sincerely,

Roger

--
___
Geeqie-devel mailing list
Geeqie-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geeqie-devel

Re: [Geeqie-devel] Build for Geeqie

[Greg Troxel]

Russel Winder  writes:

>> Before adopting a new build system, I'd like to see written
>> requirements
>> for the build system, specifically including portability and cross
>> building, and to see an analysis of how there will be no regressions.
>
> This is a clear management tool to say "we are not going to do this".
> Unlike the comment "Show us it working and we'll think about it" which
> is positive, "write a proposal document" is, to a software project,
> management speak that means "we will put up barriers to avoid any
> change".

Not at all.  It's a reaction to seeing previous projects broken by
people who want to change to shiny new tool of the month, resulting in
losing the ability to cross build.  What I asked for is a page, maybe 2,
so that shiny-new-tool proponents will realize that there is more to a
build system than working for their use case.

In the particular case I'm referring, the shiny things that replaced
autotools was scons, and it's still causing problems, even years later.



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
___
Geeqie-devel mailing list
Geeqie-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geeqie-devel

Re: [Geeqie-devel] Build for Geeqie

[Russel Winder]

On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 07:43 -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
[…]

> I have never heard of Meson before.  Certainly I may not be paying
> enough attention, but it's hard to believe it is mainstream yet.

GStreamer for one is looking to replace Autotools with Meson.

> While CMake is now reasonably common, the idea that some kind of
> packaging system will only build packages that use Cmake is very odd.
> Certainly large amounts of software does not use CMake, and it is not
> reasonable to call something broken because it doesn't.
> 
> Before adopting a new build system, I'd like to see written
> requirements
> for the build system, specifically including portability and cross
> building, and to see an analysis of how there will be no regressions.

This is a clear management tool to say "we are not going to do this".
Unlike the comment "Show us it working and we'll think about it" which
is positive, "write a proposal document" is, to a software project,
management speak that means "we will put up barriers to avoid any
change".

I get the message. I'll go away.

-- 
Russel.
=
Dr Russel Winder  t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
___
Geeqie-devel mailing list
Geeqie-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geeqie-devel

Re: [Geeqie-devel] Build for Geeqie

[Russel Winder]

On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 12:39 -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> 
[…]
> I've never heard of mezon; if looking for a buildtool in python, why
> not
> scons?  I've used scons and I liked it the best of any build tools.

I have actually been known to work on SCons from time to time over the
last decade, and whilst it is still very good for straightforward C,
C++, Fortran, D and LaTeX builds, it is beginning to lag behind in
addressing some aspects of build, particularly configuration.

CMake and SCons(, and Waf) clearly led to Meson which is a Ninja
configuration system in the way CMake is a Make configuration system. 

> But in the context of geeqie, I'd say don't fix it as long as it's
> not
> broken.  If it breaks, we can return to this discussion.

An approach I find disappointing in a FOSS project, but it seems the
view of all those who ventured a view. Which is fine, it is the project
that belongs to those who work on it. I just think that this "don't fix
the unbroken" is a route to technical debt.

Anyway given the gently hostile reaction to my email, I shall now just
go away.

-- 
Russel.
=
Dr Russel Winder  t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
___
Geeqie-devel mailing list
Geeqie-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geeqie-devel