Re: [Geeqie-devel] Build for Geeqie
> >Russel> I get the message. I'll go away. > >Christ, stop the passive aggresive stuff will you? And get a thicker >skin when people trash you suggestion. If you feel so strongly about >it, and if moving to CMake or some other tool will help you contribute >in a major way to geeqie, then go ahead. > >Start a branch, start your work and put it out over the wall for >others to see! Please please please do not let some people not being >excited for your idea mean they don't want YOU contributing. They're >down on the idea, not on you and your desire to contribute! > >John I do not think anybody was even beginnning to trash his idea. He just assumed we were. (And you're probably correct, passive aggressive. Albeit, maybe a wee bit obvious? ;-) I could see where somebody might suggest integrating CMake to make a Windows port; but even then, we still have MinGW for AutoTools support within Windows. -- Roger http://rogerx.freeshell.org/ -- ___ Geeqie-devel mailing list Geeqie-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geeqie-devel
Re: [Geeqie-devel] Build for Geeqie
> "Russel" == Russel Winder writes: Russel> On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 07:43 -0500, Greg Troxel wrote: Russel> […] >> 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. Russel> 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. Russel> This is a clear management tool to say "we are not going to do this". Russel> Unlike the comment "Show us it working and we'll think about it" which Russel> is positive, "write a proposal document" is, to a software project, Russel> management speak that means "we will put up barriers to avoid any Russel> change". Russel> I get the message. I'll go away. Christ, stop the passive aggresive stuff will you? And get a thicker skin when people trash you suggestion. If you feel so strongly about it, and if moving to CMake or some other tool will help you contribute in a major way to geeqie, then go ahead. Start a branch, start your work and put it out over the wall for others to see! Please please please do not let some people not being excited for your idea mean they don't want YOU contributing. They're down on the idea, not on you and your desire to contribute! John -- ___ Geeqie-devel mailing list Geeqie-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geeqie-devel
Re: [Geeqie-devel] Build for Geeqie
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
> 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
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
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. I do not see the logical connection between Python being slow compared to C++ and CMake. > CMake is basically a wrapper around Make, so I do not expect to see > the same > inadequacies I see with Python, except for maybe adhering to > standards. Python > constantly has been known to break standards in the past. I do not > know what > standards CMake follows, nor if they've broken any with version > releases. I am not sure I see any point in savaging Python in this way, nor what it has to do with the point at issue. And it isn't actually true. CPython implementations invariable comply exactly with the Python specification. > When I code, I tend to go with what tools others' are commonly using, > which > tends to be tools that are most stable and lowest consuming in > resources. > > If some source code breaks within AutoTools, I can fix it. CMake, I > just > forget about it here. Meson, never heard of it either. > > Ah, Meson Wikipedia; "Being written in Python Meson runs natively on > Linux > kernel-based operating systems, on macOS, on Microsoft Windows and on > other > operating systems." Maybe they've finally found something Python is > useful at? > Or maybe now my builds here are just going to get extremely more > slower than > using AutoTools? (eg. Slower meaning more CPU usage, and more waste > of > electricity.) 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. -- 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
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
On Thu, 2016-11-17 at 07:53 +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote: > […] > > I see no need currently to even think about a new build tool. > Autoconf/automake serves what it is used for and it does it good. It > would take many work to change to other one. > > From the fact that the man power is very limited, this is a big NO. I was offering to do it, thus adding to manpower. However the gently aggressive earlier reaction makes it clear that no-one active on Geeqie wants the intellectual overhead of changing their build workflow. Fine the project belongs to those who work on it. > On the other hand, I never heard of meson. Nor do I know (without > duckduckgoing) what "JetBrais CLion" is. IF there would be a need for > other build tool, I would more vote for something widely used (ok, > cmake > is not that seldom). In the end, the chances would be pretty high > that I > would end with automake/autoconf again when sorting the pro and cons. JetBrains is a company making IDEs one of which is CLion. It is a C and C++ development environment that works very nicely. But only if CMake is used as the build system. Given your preference for Autotools, and presumably not have parallel build systems, then that means use of CLion on this project is impossible. Not a problem for the project, just a blocker for me beginning to work on it. Of course this is not a problem for the project. > So, for a new project, that would be something to think about. For a > existing project, there has to be a pretty good reason to switch the > build environment to something other with new bugs and new > inadequateness. The reason was progress, new tools, new contributors. The earlier emails sapped my energy for contributing, so these emails will be my last. I'm sorry it didn't work. Good luck for the future. -- 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
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
Re: [Geeqie-devel] Build for Geeqie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi Russel, Am Mi den 16. Nov 2016 um 11:40 schrieb Russel Winder: > Geeqie currently has an Autotools build. A lot of the GTK world seems > to be switching to Meson, or at least trying it out. JetBrains CLion > only accepts CMake builds for projects (at least currently). Is the > Geeqie team committed to using Autotools, or if an alternate build were > available might it be accepted? Well, let me tell it that way, the build tool is not set in stone. But... I see no need currently to even think about a new build tool. Autoconf/automake serves what it is used for and it does it good. It would take many work to change to other one. - From the fact that the man power is very limited, this is a big NO. On the other hand, I never heard of meson. Nor do I know (without duckduckgoing) what "JetBrais CLion" is. IF there would be a need for other build tool, I would more vote for something widely used (ok, cmake is not that seldom). In the end, the chances would be pretty high that I would end with automake/autoconf again when sorting the pro and cons. So, for a new project, that would be something to think about. For a existing project, there has to be a pretty good reason to switch the build environment to something other with new bugs and new inadequateness. Am Do den 17. Nov 2016 um 1:57 schrieb Greg Troxel: > Ian Zimmerman writes: > > 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. > > That's a very good point. geeqie seems to need more people to hack on > the code, and the build system really isn't a problem at all. No more to say. That is the most valid point here. Regards Klaus - -- Klaus Ethgen http://www.ethgen.ch/ pub 4096R/4E20AF1C 2011-05-16Klaus Ethgen Fingerprint: 85D4 CA42 952C 949B 1753 62B3 79D0 B06F 4E20 AF1C -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: Charset: ISO-8859-1 iQGzBAEBCgAdFiEEMWF28vh4/UMJJLQEpnwKsYAZ9qwFAlgtU/cACgkQpnwKsYAZ 9qyyEQwAu1GWpf4lyPEHpgm83NshESygMdRb21WLk2Ua8j0xYjmZAjwygM/1dh7T HF/NV2dsXqClYgZHnAE/CStnukcOouPPYIR4WchJMKzlxCjKG2ZgDe+cwg6POE4j nQN2jk4XAsqW5ijAbBfzgbddW3nQBoQKdvsgDm+/D3aOLvezeOrimanYF1IAe0Xj nD9Jkd6jaEXsO7r9KNEpbhzQ9PA18TpabEb10NG2ZNRSYNexVRqsuJPiKJhmJU6D igsbs9pYdQaQcD0j4GAtFIelsfRostRgMeYp1uY4MwFB2hH5RUhw3cafYl5h4m/H 1H30I31b/Z9RlJfdtiacvmp3ES0N4cu46855XRFd6UaRyZWgxJ2vcMZe14yzNw6d ti2VsLKFcAPiuNeKr4U/Xcq5zxpddsHPtEtPFeDuqQm3/KfoNQep57wbtH139HXR rC2dQLdscimrVtxKc8OpKaKtK8NvJG36y37ckiOwogbFHPk3evxGj3CHPAhOjfsx emU5GFv9 =/578 -END 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
Ian Zimmerman writes: > 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. That's a very good point. geeqie seems to need more people to hack on the code, and the build system really isn't a problem at all. 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
On 2016-11-16 14:58, 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. It's time for me to chime in even though I fear this is heading straight for the bike shed ;-) I have found autotools useful for handling situations that go beyond the normal self hosted build, especially when cross compiling for embedded systems. But, I must say they're the opposite of "stable" as far as I'm concerned. Upgrade one piece and the whole thing breaks down horribly. And constant churn means one must upgrade. Gettext and the related tools seem to be the worst. 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. 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. -- 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
Using "fgrep /usr/portage/* -r -e meson" on my Gentoo system, only results in media-plugins/gst-transcoder and media-video/pitivi packages using or optionally using the meson build system. I think the Meson Wikipedia might be indicating GNOME, GTK+, GLib and GStreamer might be optionally providing meson support within each package's source code along side AutoTools or CMake. So far, everything here on Gentoo seems to be either AutoTools and CMake, or other build system I cannot recall. -- Roger http://rogerx.freeshell.org/ -- ___ Geeqie-devel mailing list Geeqie-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geeqie-devel
Re: [Geeqie-devel] Build for Geeqie
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. CMake is basically a wrapper around Make, so I do not expect to see the same inadequacies I see with Python, except for maybe adhering to standards. Python constantly has been known to break standards in the past. I do not know what standards CMake follows, nor if they've broken any with version releases. When I code, I tend to go with what tools others' are commonly using, which tends to be tools that are most stable and lowest consuming in resources. If some source code breaks within AutoTools, I can fix it. CMake, I just forget about it here. Meson, never heard of it either. Ah, Meson Wikipedia; "Being written in Python Meson runs natively on Linux kernel-based operating systems, on macOS, on Microsoft Windows and on other operating systems." Maybe they've finally found something Python is useful at? Or maybe now my builds here are just going to get extremely more slower than using AutoTools? (eg. Slower meaning more CPU usage, and more waste of electricity.) -- Roger http://rogerx.freeshell.org/ -- ___ 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 writes: > Geeqie currently has an Autotools build. A lot of the GTK world seems > to be switching to Meson, or at least trying it out. JetBrains CLion > only accepts CMake builds for projects (at least currently). Is the > Geeqie team committed to using Autotools, or if an alternate build were > available might it be accepted? (speaking for myself of course) I have found autotools to be quite stable and sane over the years, if a bit hard to set up for the project. The newer tools seem to claim to be better and then people struggle to get all the functionality of autotools (such as cross building). So I am very skeptical of changing to a flavor-of-the-month build tool. 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. 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. signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- ___ Geeqie-devel mailing list Geeqie-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geeqie-devel
[Geeqie-devel] Build for Geeqie
Geeqie currently has an Autotools build. A lot of the GTK world seems to be switching to Meson, or at least trying it out. JetBrains CLion only accepts CMake builds for projects (at least currently). Is the Geeqie team committed to using Autotools, or if an alternate build were available might it be accepted? -- 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