Re: [Mesa-dev] Drop scons for 20.1?
From: Michel Dänzer Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 15:56 To: Jose Fonseca ; Marek Olšák Cc: Neha Bhende ; Kristian Høgsberg ; Dylan Baker ; mesa-dev Subject: Re: [Mesa-dev] Drop scons for 20.1? On 2020-03-27 2:29 p.m., Jose Fonseca wrote: > > If SCons is such a time sink, then the best we can do is suggest to > take it off Marge-bot. That would be something like https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgitlab.freedesktop.org%2Fmesa%2Fmesa%2F-%2Fmerge_requests%2F4352data=02%7C01%7Cjfonseca%40vmware.com%7C786cd1eeae684a45dd3a08d7d26766aa%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637209213877300351sdata=c9OoEsfgpIGhwoewerL%2Fb7ZShTr9CVCtLJdcMPLoUVk%3Dreserved=0 then. Not quite what I had in mind (I suggested take it off Marge-bot, as opposed to take it off completely.) But lets continue the conversion in the MR. For the record I also did make a https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/merge_requests/4348 for reducing the targets as suggested by Marek, which I'd like to get in first. > The onus of fixing SCons will go back to us, as it always did > throughout these the past twelve years. Not for the last year or so, when it's been part of the pre-merge CI pipeline? True. And while I don't recall asking SCons to be added to pre-merge CI (I certainly did not), I do appreciate the effort and grief this might have caused. Lets take it out. As tiring fixing SCons by ourselves might be, is still better than being constantly painted as the bad guys and constantly have to fend off requests to yank off SCons. Jose ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Drop scons for 20.1?
On 2020-03-27 2:29 p.m., Jose Fonseca wrote: > > If SCons is such a time sink, then the best we can do is suggest to > take it off Marge-bot. That would be something like https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/merge_requests/4352 then. > The onus of fixing SCons will go back to us, as it always did > throughout these the past twelve years. Not for the last year or so, when it's been part of the pre-merge CI pipeline? -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | https://redhat.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Drop scons for 20.1?
In the long term we should reduce the complexity of the project. scons is a
maintenance burden.
We all agree here. And we are making progress. Even a couple of weeks ago I
had to debug and fix weird Meson behaviour --
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/merge_requests/4186
Every time I break the scons build and the CI reports it, can I politely ask
you to fix my MR instead of me doing it? Then at least the real maintenance
cost would be known to scons supporters, instead of the cost being invisible to
most.
Sure. But first I want all the time back I spent fixing scons and msvc builds
when the cost was invisible to most. Even after setting up Appveyor people
ignored the successive build failures. Even when fix was plain trivial and
easily avoidable (like replacing non-standard `= {}` initializers for `= { 0
}`). Even when I politely asked to fix it, people ignored. Not you perhaps,
but several did.
Honestly, why do you blame me/us? Mesa had multiple build systems for all its
life -- all with different state of brokenness. What really changed these
days is not actually the Meson-holy-grail, but this new Marge-bot overlord.
Personally I find it this new process a tad too draconian.
If SCons is such a time sink, then the best we can do is suggest to take it off
Marge-bot. The onus of fixing SCons will go back to us, as it always did
throughout these the past twelve years.
BTW, the grief you and others might be experiencing now, is probably 1/100th of
what we systematically had throughout these years. I particularly recall all
the pain and grief to replicate all the autoconf build logic for code
generation every time there was a major addition / refactoring in Mesa -- in
particular all those Python scripts that generated C code are very difficult to
match, because unlike Autoconf, SCons had fined grained dependencies, so
missing one dependency meant incremental builds would use stale source code.
Some times there were more broken builds that good ones. Even git-bisecting
was extremely had as result. Though to be fair, I do recall I also moaned and
bitch about it too.
In the mean time, I think we can remove all parts of scons that VMWare does NOT
care about. Do you need haiku-softpipe? Do you need graw-null? Do you need swr?
glx? There is bunch you don't really need on Windows.
Now that is a more serious proposal. An excellent one in fact.
The only scons targets we need are libgl-gdi (and its dependencies, including
llvmpipe) and svga.
Everything else can go as far as we are concerned. graw was useful at one
point, but I don't think it's that useful anymore. Regarding haiku-softpipe
and swr targets, they were not added to SCons by VMware. I suppose if the
stakeholders didn't speak up so far, one can assume they don't care.
Jose
From: Marek Olšák
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 00:56
To: Jose Fonseca
Cc: Jason Ekstrand ; Rob Clark ;
Kristian Høgsberg ; mesa-dev
; Dylan Baker
Subject: Re: [Mesa-dev] Drop scons for 20.1?
In the long term we should reduce the complexity of the project. scons is a
maintenance burden. Every time I break the scons build and the CI reports it,
can I politely ask you to fix my MR instead of me doing it? Then at least the
real maintenance cost would be known to scons supporters, instead of the cost
being invisible to most.
In the mean time, I think we can remove all parts of scons that VMWare does NOT
care about. Do you need haiku-softpipe? Do you need graw-null? Do you need swr?
glx? There is bunch you don't really need on Windows.
Marek
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 3:44 PM Jose Fonseca
mailto:jfons...@vmware.com>> wrote:
We already solved some pieces (e.g, how to consume and use Meson, while
following our internal legal process required for adding new 3rd party
dependencies), and figured a way to consume Meson build without having to
migrate lots of internal build logic from Scons to Meson. But other stuff just
keeps getting higher priority, and we haven't fully migrated.
Please do understand, SCons just works for us. We are making progress with
Meson. It's just not the highest priority, when time is short, it gets
deferred.
I don't understand the rush. If it was trivial and easy we'd obviously would
have done it.
Jose
From: Jason Ekstrand mailto:ja...@jlekstrand.net>>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 04:15
To: Rob Clark mailto:robdcl...@gmail.com>>; Kristian
Høgsberg mailto:hoegsb...@gmail.com>>
Cc: mesa-dev
mailto:mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org>>; Dylan
Baker mailto:baker.dyla...@gmail.com>>; Jose Fonseca
mailto:jfons...@vmware.com>>; Brian Paul
mailto:bri...@vmware.com>>
Subject: Re: [Mesa-dev] Drop scons for 20.1?
+Jose & Brian
I'm not personally opposed but I also can't remember the last time I had to
fix the scons build. I think it's been years. Maybe that's beca
Re: [Mesa-dev] Drop scons for 20.1?
In the long term we should reduce the complexity of the project. scons is a maintenance burden. Every time I break the scons build and the CI reports it, can I politely ask you to fix my MR instead of me doing it? Then at least the real maintenance cost would be known to scons supporters, instead of the cost being invisible to most. In the mean time, I think we can remove all parts of scons that VMWare does NOT care about. Do you need haiku-softpipe? Do you need graw-null? Do you need swr? glx? There is bunch you don't really need on Windows. Marek On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 3:44 PM Jose Fonseca wrote: > We already solved some pieces (e.g, how to consume and use Meson, while > following our internal legal process required for adding new 3rd party > dependencies), and figured a way to consume Meson build without having to > migrate lots of internal build logic from Scons to Meson. But other stuff > just keeps getting higher priority, and we haven't fully migrated. > > Please do understand, SCons *just* *works* for us. We are making > progress with Meson. It's just not the highest priority, when time is > short, it gets deferred. > > I don't understand the rush. If it was trivial and easy we'd obviously > would have done it. > > Jose > > -- > *From:* Jason Ekstrand > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2020 04:15 > *To:* Rob Clark ; Kristian Høgsberg < > hoegsb...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* mesa-dev ; Dylan Baker < > baker.dyla...@gmail.com>; Jose Fonseca ; Brian Paul < > bri...@vmware.com> > *Subject:* Re: [Mesa-dev] Drop scons for 20.1? > > +Jose & Brian > > I'm not personally opposed but I also can't remember the last time I had > to > fix the scons build. I think it's been years. Maybe that's because I don't > work on GL anymore? In any case, I don't know that it's really costing us > that much given that basically none of the drivers actually build with it. > But fat meh, I guess. > > --Jason > > On February 25, 2020 21:56:30 Rob Clark wrote: > > > It looks like we have 4 scons build jobs in CI.. I'm not sure how much > > that costs us, but I guess those cycles could be put to better use? > > So even ignoring the developer-cycles issue (ie. someone making > > changes that effects scons build, and has to setup a scons build env > > to fix breakage of their MR) I guess there is at least an argument to > > remove scons from CI. Whether it is worth keeping a dead build system > > after it is removed from CI is an issue that I'm ambivalent about. > > > > BR, > > -R > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 3:42 PM Kristian Høgsberg > wrote: > >> > >> It's been a while since Dylan did the work to make meson support > >> Windows and there's been plenty of time to provide feedback or improve > >> argue why we still need scons. I haven't seen any such discussion and > >> I think we've waited long enough. > >> > >> Let's drop scons for the next release and move things forward? > >> > >> Kristian > >> ___ > >> mesa-dev mailing list > >> mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > >> > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.freedesktop.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmesa-devdata=02%7C01%7Cjfonseca%40vmware.com%7Cc8b86d6f312c48d77f3c08d7ba72774f%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637182873108493719sdata=oKvqrkRoo6%2FqGW5BWbe1exIcBF%2BI%2BblcWIIVo3iW9J0%3Dreserved=0 > > ___ > > mesa-dev mailing list > > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.freedesktop.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmesa-devdata=02%7C01%7Cjfonseca%40vmware.com%7Cc8b86d6f312c48d77f3c08d7ba72774f%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637182873108493719sdata=oKvqrkRoo6%2FqGW5BWbe1exIcBF%2BI%2BblcWIIVo3iW9J0%3Dreserved=0 > > > > ___ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev > ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Drop scons for 20.1?
Hi, On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 23:42, Kristian Høgsberg wrote: > It's been a while since Dylan did the work to make meson support > Windows and there's been plenty of time to provide feedback or improve > argue why we still need scons. I haven't seen any such discussion and > I think we've waited long enough. Dylan's work didn't get enabled by default, and also depended on Windows runners having a system environment set up. Taking a little bit of work from the GStreamer side, I wrote a native Windows VS2019 CI which also uses Docker to build in: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/merge_requests/4304 Cheers, Daniel ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Drop scons for 20.1?
I'm on vacation this week. When I get back next week we'll talk about this again at VMware. Unfortunately, integrating a new build tool into our infrastructure here can be pretty difficult. But I totally understand the appeal of getting rid of SCons. Please hold on a bit... -Brian On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 2:04 PM Kristian Høgsberg wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:16 PM Jose Fonseca wrote: > > > > > but it bothers me how we keep not making a decision on this. If we'd > said, "let's keep it and support it", that would something. > > > > I'm surprised there's any doubt. > > > > SCons works great for us. Meson gives no immediate benefit for us > other than headaches. If we cared about nothing but ourselves, we'd keep > SCons indefinitely, until it became a pain. > > > > The only reason we don't stubbornly put the foot down is that we > understand that having one single build system would be beneficial the > whole community, and of course we appreciate all the work Dylan and others > did to get Meson to work on Windows, so we'd like to get there one day. > > > > That said, I don't understand why the rest of the Mesa community putting > a gun against our head to abandon SCons. > > > > Aren't we maintaining the SCons build? Since when in Mesa community are > some entitled to start remove code that still works, is used, and > maintained by others > > Nobody is entitled to remove the code, that's why we're having this > discussion. And I bet it's frustrating for you to have to deal with > this again and again, but on the other side, it's frustrating to see > this issue come up again and again with no evident progress > whatsoever. What has happened on your side since the last time this > was discussed? When is that "one day"? How are we supposed to move > this forward without bringing it up? > > As for removing code that works - we do that All. The. Time. We > refactor subsystems, IRs, entire drivers get rewritten and replace the > working code that was there before, in order the lower the maintenance > burden, run across more platforms, shader a compiler pass, reduce > techincal debt etc. > > Kristian > > > > > Jose > > > > > > From: Kristian Høgsberg > > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 18:37 > > To: Jason Ekstrand > > Cc: Rob Clark ; mesa-dev < > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org>; Dylan Baker ; > Jose Fonseca ; Brian Paul > > Subject: Re: [Mesa-dev] Drop scons for 20.1? > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 8:15 PM Jason Ekstrand > wrote: > > > > > > +Jose & Brian > > > > > > I'm not personally opposed but I also can't remember the last time I > had to > > > fix the scons build. I think it's been years. Maybe that's because I > don't > > > work on GL anymore? In any case, I don't know that it's really costing > us > > > that much given that basically none of the drivers actually build with > it. > > > But fat meh, I guess. > > > > Maybe it is a bit meh... I did the MR to remove SCons and it's smaller > > that I thought it would be: > > > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgitlab.freedesktop.org%2Fmesa%2Fmesa%2F-%2Fmerge_requests%2F3955data=02%7C01%7Cjfonseca%40vmware.com%7C6b2e8f2abc98458d18ad08d7baeb0443%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C1%7C637183390863817583sdata=96lM4flW9ja6fJG95nlNdmftNiYpajxpg0Il850%2FDLk%3Dreserved=0 > > > > but it bothers me how we keep not making a decision on this. If we'd > > said, "let's keep it and support it", that would something. But > > whenever it comes up, Dylan maybe fixes something on the windows > > build, we talk about trying to switch Windows to meson and then... > > nothing. > > > > Also, we've had this unfortunate split between Linux and Windows build > > systems where autotools suck on Windows and nobody on Unix ever had a > > reason to use SCons. With meson we've picked something that's a > > legitimate improvement on both sides, get's us back to one build > > system and done more than due dilligence to make it work on Windows > > and we're not taking the last step because... meh? > > > > Kristian > > > > > --Jason > > > > > > On February 25, 2020 21:56:30 Rob Clark wrote: > > > > > > > It looks like we have 4 scons build jobs in CI.. I'm not sure how > much > > > > that costs us, but I guess those cycles could be put to better use? > > > > So even ignoring the developer-cycles issue (ie. someone making > > &g
Re: [Mesa-dev] Drop scons for 20.1?
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:16 PM Jose Fonseca wrote: > > > but it bothers me how we keep not making a decision on this. If we'd said, > > "let's keep it and support it", that would something. > > I'm surprised there's any doubt. > > SCons works great for us. Meson gives no immediate benefit for us other > than headaches. If we cared about nothing but ourselves, we'd keep SCons > indefinitely, until it became a pain. > > The only reason we don't stubbornly put the foot down is that we understand > that having one single build system would be beneficial the whole community, > and of course we appreciate all the work Dylan and others did to get Meson to > work on Windows, so we'd like to get there one day. > > That said, I don't understand why the rest of the Mesa community putting a > gun against our head to abandon SCons. > > Aren't we maintaining the SCons build? Since when in Mesa community are some > entitled to start remove code that still works, is used, and maintained by > others Nobody is entitled to remove the code, that's why we're having this discussion. And I bet it's frustrating for you to have to deal with this again and again, but on the other side, it's frustrating to see this issue come up again and again with no evident progress whatsoever. What has happened on your side since the last time this was discussed? When is that "one day"? How are we supposed to move this forward without bringing it up? As for removing code that works - we do that All. The. Time. We refactor subsystems, IRs, entire drivers get rewritten and replace the working code that was there before, in order the lower the maintenance burden, run across more platforms, shader a compiler pass, reduce techincal debt etc. Kristian > > Jose > > > From: Kristian Høgsberg > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 18:37 > To: Jason Ekstrand > Cc: Rob Clark ; mesa-dev > ; Dylan Baker ; Jose > Fonseca ; Brian Paul > Subject: Re: [Mesa-dev] Drop scons for 20.1? > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 8:15 PM Jason Ekstrand wrote: > > > > +Jose & Brian > > > > I'm not personally opposed but I also can't remember the last time I had to > > fix the scons build. I think it's been years. Maybe that's because I don't > > work on GL anymore? In any case, I don't know that it's really costing us > > that much given that basically none of the drivers actually build with it. > > But fat meh, I guess. > > Maybe it is a bit meh... I did the MR to remove SCons and it's smaller > that I thought it would be: > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgitlab.freedesktop.org%2Fmesa%2Fmesa%2F-%2Fmerge_requests%2F3955data=02%7C01%7Cjfonseca%40vmware.com%7C6b2e8f2abc98458d18ad08d7baeb0443%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C1%7C637183390863817583sdata=96lM4flW9ja6fJG95nlNdmftNiYpajxpg0Il850%2FDLk%3Dreserved=0 > > but it bothers me how we keep not making a decision on this. If we'd > said, "let's keep it and support it", that would something. But > whenever it comes up, Dylan maybe fixes something on the windows > build, we talk about trying to switch Windows to meson and then... > nothing. > > Also, we've had this unfortunate split between Linux and Windows build > systems where autotools suck on Windows and nobody on Unix ever had a > reason to use SCons. With meson we've picked something that's a > legitimate improvement on both sides, get's us back to one build > system and done more than due dilligence to make it work on Windows > and we're not taking the last step because... meh? > > Kristian > > > --Jason > > > > On February 25, 2020 21:56:30 Rob Clark wrote: > > > > > It looks like we have 4 scons build jobs in CI.. I'm not sure how much > > > that costs us, but I guess those cycles could be put to better use? > > > So even ignoring the developer-cycles issue (ie. someone making > > > changes that effects scons build, and has to setup a scons build env > > > to fix breakage of their MR) I guess there is at least an argument to > > > remove scons from CI. Whether it is worth keeping a dead build system > > > after it is removed from CI is an issue that I'm ambivalent about. > > > > > > BR, > > > -R > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 3:42 PM Kristian Høgsberg > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> It's been a while since Dylan did the work to make meson support > > >> Windows and there's been plenty of time to provide feedback or improve > > >> argue why we still need scons. I haven't seen any such discussion and > > >>
Re: [Mesa-dev] Drop scons for 20.1?
We already solved some pieces (e.g, how to consume and use Meson, while following our internal legal process required for adding new 3rd party dependencies), and figured a way to consume Meson build without having to migrate lots of internal build logic from Scons to Meson. But other stuff just keeps getting higher priority, and we haven't fully migrated. Please do understand, SCons just works for us. We are making progress with Meson. It's just not the highest priority, when time is short, it gets deferred. I don't understand the rush. If it was trivial and easy we'd obviously would have done it. Jose From: Jason Ekstrand Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 04:15 To: Rob Clark ; Kristian Høgsberg Cc: mesa-dev ; Dylan Baker ; Jose Fonseca ; Brian Paul Subject: Re: [Mesa-dev] Drop scons for 20.1? +Jose & Brian I'm not personally opposed but I also can't remember the last time I had to fix the scons build. I think it's been years. Maybe that's because I don't work on GL anymore? In any case, I don't know that it's really costing us that much given that basically none of the drivers actually build with it. But fat meh, I guess. --Jason On February 25, 2020 21:56:30 Rob Clark wrote: > It looks like we have 4 scons build jobs in CI.. I'm not sure how much > that costs us, but I guess those cycles could be put to better use? > So even ignoring the developer-cycles issue (ie. someone making > changes that effects scons build, and has to setup a scons build env > to fix breakage of their MR) I guess there is at least an argument to > remove scons from CI. Whether it is worth keeping a dead build system > after it is removed from CI is an issue that I'm ambivalent about. > > BR, > -R > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 3:42 PM Kristian Høgsberg wrote: >> >> It's been a while since Dylan did the work to make meson support >> Windows and there's been plenty of time to provide feedback or improve >> argue why we still need scons. I haven't seen any such discussion and >> I think we've waited long enough. >> >> Let's drop scons for the next release and move things forward? >> >> Kristian >> ___ >> mesa-dev mailing list >> mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.freedesktop.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmesa-devdata=02%7C01%7Cjfonseca%40vmware.com%7Cc8b86d6f312c48d77f3c08d7ba72774f%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637182873108493719sdata=oKvqrkRoo6%2FqGW5BWbe1exIcBF%2BI%2BblcWIIVo3iW9J0%3Dreserved=0 > ___ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.freedesktop.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmesa-devdata=02%7C01%7Cjfonseca%40vmware.com%7Cc8b86d6f312c48d77f3c08d7ba72774f%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637182873108493719sdata=oKvqrkRoo6%2FqGW5BWbe1exIcBF%2BI%2BblcWIIVo3iW9J0%3Dreserved=0 ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Drop scons for 20.1?
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:16 PM Jose Fonseca wrote: > > > but it bothers me how we keep not making a decision on this. If we'd said, > > "let's keep it and support it", that would something. > > I'm surprised there's any doubt. > > SCons works great for us. Meson gives no immediate benefit for us other > than headaches. If we cared about nothing but ourselves, we'd keep SCons > indefinitely, until it became a pain. > > The only reason we don't stubbornly put the foot down is that we understand > that having one single build system would be beneficial the whole community, > and of course we appreciate all the work Dylan and others did to get Meson to > work on Windows, so we'd like to get there one day. > > That said, I don't understand why the rest of the Mesa community putting a > gun against our head to abandon SCons. > > Aren't we maintaining the SCons build? Since when in Mesa community are some > entitled to start remove code that still works, is used, and maintained by > others > currently scons build is in CI, so for anyone making build system changes that effects code that is part of the scons build, they have to go and read enough stack-overflow to figure out how to make the same changes in scons ;-) BR, -R ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Drop scons for 20.1?
> but it bothers me how we keep not making a decision on this. If we'd said, > "let's keep it and support it", that would something. I'm surprised there's any doubt. SCons works great for us. Meson gives no immediate benefit for us other than headaches. If we cared about nothing but ourselves, we'd keep SCons indefinitely, until it became a pain. The only reason we don't stubbornly put the foot down is that we understand that having one single build system would be beneficial the whole community, and of course we appreciate all the work Dylan and others did to get Meson to work on Windows, so we'd like to get there one day. That said, I don't understand why the rest of the Mesa community putting a gun against our head to abandon SCons. Aren't we maintaining the SCons build? Since when in Mesa community are some entitled to start remove code that still works, is used, and maintained by others Jose From: Kristian Høgsberg Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 18:37 To: Jason Ekstrand Cc: Rob Clark ; mesa-dev ; Dylan Baker ; Jose Fonseca ; Brian Paul Subject: Re: [Mesa-dev] Drop scons for 20.1? On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 8:15 PM Jason Ekstrand wrote: > > +Jose & Brian > > I'm not personally opposed but I also can't remember the last time I had to > fix the scons build. I think it's been years. Maybe that's because I don't > work on GL anymore? In any case, I don't know that it's really costing us > that much given that basically none of the drivers actually build with it. > But fat meh, I guess. Maybe it is a bit meh... I did the MR to remove SCons and it's smaller that I thought it would be: https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgitlab.freedesktop.org%2Fmesa%2Fmesa%2F-%2Fmerge_requests%2F3955data=02%7C01%7Cjfonseca%40vmware.com%7C6b2e8f2abc98458d18ad08d7baeb0443%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C1%7C637183390863817583sdata=96lM4flW9ja6fJG95nlNdmftNiYpajxpg0Il850%2FDLk%3Dreserved=0 but it bothers me how we keep not making a decision on this. If we'd said, "let's keep it and support it", that would something. But whenever it comes up, Dylan maybe fixes something on the windows build, we talk about trying to switch Windows to meson and then... nothing. Also, we've had this unfortunate split between Linux and Windows build systems where autotools suck on Windows and nobody on Unix ever had a reason to use SCons. With meson we've picked something that's a legitimate improvement on both sides, get's us back to one build system and done more than due dilligence to make it work on Windows and we're not taking the last step because... meh? Kristian > --Jason > > On February 25, 2020 21:56:30 Rob Clark wrote: > > > It looks like we have 4 scons build jobs in CI.. I'm not sure how much > > that costs us, but I guess those cycles could be put to better use? > > So even ignoring the developer-cycles issue (ie. someone making > > changes that effects scons build, and has to setup a scons build env > > to fix breakage of their MR) I guess there is at least an argument to > > remove scons from CI. Whether it is worth keeping a dead build system > > after it is removed from CI is an issue that I'm ambivalent about. > > > > BR, > > -R > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 3:42 PM Kristian Høgsberg > > wrote: > >> > >> It's been a while since Dylan did the work to make meson support > >> Windows and there's been plenty of time to provide feedback or improve > >> argue why we still need scons. I haven't seen any such discussion and > >> I think we've waited long enough. > >> > >> Let's drop scons for the next release and move things forward? > >> > >> Kristian > >> ___ > >> mesa-dev mailing list > >> mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.freedesktop.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmesa-devdata=02%7C01%7Cjfonseca%40vmware.com%7C6b2e8f2abc98458d18ad08d7baeb0443%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C1%7C637183390863817583sdata=d40ceGVLhyahNydLEZ55P7hgjqeLtIOMKN6J0NPmfwE%3Dreserved=0 > > ___ > > mesa-dev mailing list > > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.freedesktop.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmesa-devdata=02%7C01%7Cjfonseca%40vmware.com%7C6b2e8f2abc98458d18ad08d7baeb0443%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C1%7C637183390863817583sdata=d40ceGVLhyahNydLEZ55P7hgjqeLtIOMKN6J0NPmfwE%3Dreserved=0 > > > ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Drop scons for 20.1?
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 8:15 PM Jason Ekstrand wrote: > > +Jose & Brian > > I'm not personally opposed but I also can't remember the last time I had to > fix the scons build. I think it's been years. Maybe that's because I don't > work on GL anymore? In any case, I don't know that it's really costing us > that much given that basically none of the drivers actually build with it. > But fat meh, I guess. Maybe it is a bit meh... I did the MR to remove SCons and it's smaller that I thought it would be: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/merge_requests/3955 but it bothers me how we keep not making a decision on this. If we'd said, "let's keep it and support it", that would something. But whenever it comes up, Dylan maybe fixes something on the windows build, we talk about trying to switch Windows to meson and then... nothing. Also, we've had this unfortunate split between Linux and Windows build systems where autotools suck on Windows and nobody on Unix ever had a reason to use SCons. With meson we've picked something that's a legitimate improvement on both sides, get's us back to one build system and done more than due dilligence to make it work on Windows and we're not taking the last step because... meh? Kristian > --Jason > > On February 25, 2020 21:56:30 Rob Clark wrote: > > > It looks like we have 4 scons build jobs in CI.. I'm not sure how much > > that costs us, but I guess those cycles could be put to better use? > > So even ignoring the developer-cycles issue (ie. someone making > > changes that effects scons build, and has to setup a scons build env > > to fix breakage of their MR) I guess there is at least an argument to > > remove scons from CI. Whether it is worth keeping a dead build system > > after it is removed from CI is an issue that I'm ambivalent about. > > > > BR, > > -R > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 3:42 PM Kristian Høgsberg > > wrote: > >> > >> It's been a while since Dylan did the work to make meson support > >> Windows and there's been plenty of time to provide feedback or improve > >> argue why we still need scons. I haven't seen any such discussion and > >> I think we've waited long enough. > >> > >> Let's drop scons for the next release and move things forward? > >> > >> Kristian > >> ___ > >> mesa-dev mailing list > >> mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > >> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev > > ___ > > mesa-dev mailing list > > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev > > > ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Drop scons for 20.1?
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 3:42 PM Kristian Høgsberg wrote: > > It's been a while since Dylan did the work to make meson support > Windows and there's been plenty of time to provide feedback or improve > argue why we still need scons. I haven't seen any such discussion and > I think we've waited long enough. > > Let's drop scons for the next release and move things forward? I agree. We shouldn't be spending project resources (developer time, CI machine time) on a duplicate build system for a closed source fork of Mesa. ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Drop scons for 20.1?
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 2:07 AM Michel Dänzer wrote: > > On 2020-02-26 4:56 a.m., Rob Clark wrote: > > It looks like we have 4 scons build jobs in CI.. I'm not sure how much > > that costs us, but I guess those cycles could be put to better use? > > So even ignoring the developer-cycles issue (ie. someone making > > changes that effects scons build, and has to setup a scons build env > > to fix breakage of their MR) I guess there is at least an argument to > > remove scons from CI. Whether it is worth keeping a dead build system > > after it is removed from CI is an issue that I'm ambivalent about. > > As long as it's supported, it needs to be tested in CI. > Well, I mean, removed from CI (but files left in place) would put it at the same level of "support" as android build. Ie. not tested in CI and doesn't block merging changes, but people who use it are on the hook for pushing fixes when it does break. BR, -R ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Drop scons for 20.1?
On 26/2/20 5:15, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > +Jose & Brian > > I'm not personally opposed but I also can't remember the last time I > had to fix the scons build. I think it's been years. Maybe that's > because I don't work on GL anymore? I bet that the latter. I remember some years ago pushing new code (I think that was the initial ARB_gl_spirv code), updating the meson and autotools files (we were still on transition), and found when the code was I pushed broke the scons build. Moving from three build systems to two was good. If possible I really think that it would be a good idea to move from two to one. > In any case, I don't know that it's really costing us that much given > that basically none of the drivers actually build with it. But fat > meh, I guess. > > --Jason > > On February 25, 2020 21:56:30 Rob Clark wrote: > >> It looks like we have 4 scons build jobs in CI.. I'm not sure how much >> that costs us, but I guess those cycles could be put to better use? >> So even ignoring the developer-cycles issue (ie. someone making >> changes that effects scons build, and has to setup a scons build env >> to fix breakage of their MR) I guess there is at least an argument to >> remove scons from CI. Whether it is worth keeping a dead build system >> after it is removed from CI is an issue that I'm ambivalent about. >> >> BR, >> -R >> >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 3:42 PM Kristian Høgsberg >> wrote: >>> >>> It's been a while since Dylan did the work to make meson support >>> Windows and there's been plenty of time to provide feedback or improve >>> argue why we still need scons. I haven't seen any such discussion and >>> I think we've waited long enough. >>> >>> Let's drop scons for the next release and move things forward? >>> >>> Kristian >>> ___ >>> mesa-dev mailing list >>> mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org >>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev >> ___ >> mesa-dev mailing list >> mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org >> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev > > > > ___ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev pEpkey.asc Description: application/pgp-keys ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Drop scons for 20.1?
On 2020-02-26 4:56 a.m., Rob Clark wrote: > It looks like we have 4 scons build jobs in CI.. I'm not sure how much > that costs us, but I guess those cycles could be put to better use? > So even ignoring the developer-cycles issue (ie. someone making > changes that effects scons build, and has to setup a scons build env > to fix breakage of their MR) I guess there is at least an argument to > remove scons from CI. Whether it is worth keeping a dead build system > after it is removed from CI is an issue that I'm ambivalent about. As long as it's supported, it needs to be tested in CI. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | https://redhat.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Drop scons for 20.1?
+Jose & Brian I'm not personally opposed but I also can't remember the last time I had to fix the scons build. I think it's been years. Maybe that's because I don't work on GL anymore? In any case, I don't know that it's really costing us that much given that basically none of the drivers actually build with it. But fat meh, I guess. --Jason On February 25, 2020 21:56:30 Rob Clark wrote: It looks like we have 4 scons build jobs in CI.. I'm not sure how much that costs us, but I guess those cycles could be put to better use? So even ignoring the developer-cycles issue (ie. someone making changes that effects scons build, and has to setup a scons build env to fix breakage of their MR) I guess there is at least an argument to remove scons from CI. Whether it is worth keeping a dead build system after it is removed from CI is an issue that I'm ambivalent about. BR, -R On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 3:42 PM Kristian Høgsberg wrote: It's been a while since Dylan did the work to make meson support Windows and there's been plenty of time to provide feedback or improve argue why we still need scons. I haven't seen any such discussion and I think we've waited long enough. Let's drop scons for the next release and move things forward? Kristian ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Drop scons for 20.1?
It looks like we have 4 scons build jobs in CI.. I'm not sure how much that costs us, but I guess those cycles could be put to better use? So even ignoring the developer-cycles issue (ie. someone making changes that effects scons build, and has to setup a scons build env to fix breakage of their MR) I guess there is at least an argument to remove scons from CI. Whether it is worth keeping a dead build system after it is removed from CI is an issue that I'm ambivalent about. BR, -R On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 3:42 PM Kristian Høgsberg wrote: > > It's been a while since Dylan did the work to make meson support > Windows and there's been plenty of time to provide feedback or improve > argue why we still need scons. I haven't seen any such discussion and > I think we've waited long enough. > > Let's drop scons for the next release and move things forward? > > Kristian > ___ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
