On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 01:37:04AM +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 02:04:06PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > > As I said on the bug, the downside is the addition of py3 and ninja as > > build time dependencies, but I think the upside (a build system where > > we don't have to worry about parallel make issues or portability) > > outweighs that. > Could you please link or otherwise explain the portability issue?
I'm not talking about a specific instance, just the flexability you get with a build system. You let it handle the details of building executables, linking libraries, etc. I have heard from more than one person that the OpenRC makefiles are not written well, and I agree, so I've been looking for a build system for a while. I thought about autotools. I'm not really fond of its syntax, and I've been told that, to use autotools correctly, I would need to start generating manual release tarballs again because I would need to put the autotools generated cruft in them. I'm open to suggestions. I picked meson to experiment with because it has a very nice clean syntax. William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
