On Son, 2011-08-07 at 13:14 +0900, Chia-I Wu wrote: > On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Chad Versace <c...@chad-versace.us> wrote: > > On 08/05/2011 05:41 AM, Dan Nicholson wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Chad Versace <c...@chad-versace.us> wrote: > >>> > >>> The entirety of the Android project --- libc, webkit, the window manager, > >>> *everything* --- exists in a single source tree [1]. And that source tree > >>> is > >>> built with a single, non-recursive invocation of make. Every time I say > >>> that, I > >>> find it hard to believe myself, so I'll say it again: The entirety of the > >>> Android OS, all core libraries and apps, are built with a single, > >>> non-recursive > >>> invocation of make. (The kernel is the special exception to this > >>> all-encompassing build). The final build artifact is a bootable iso image. > >>> > >>> [1] http://android.git.kernel.org/ > >> > >> Looking at all those git repos, wouldn't this be more appropriate as > >> an android project? platform/external/mesa or something? > > > > Mesa already belongs to the Android x86 tree [1] as platform/external/mesa. > > (The > > Android x86 project is a fork that closely mirrors upstream Android). It > > also > > exists as such in some private trees. > > > > [1] http://git.android-x86.org/ > > > >> I haven't > >> seen any Android.mk files show up in freetype or expat or anything > >> like that. In the same way, mesa doesn't carry a debian folder even > >> though that's how debian and ubuntu build mesa. Certainly if there are > >> fixes to the existing build infrastructure that help get mesa built on > >> android, that should be done, but I don't see why we should carry the > >> android build bits in upstream mesa. > >> > >> -- > >> Dan > > > > Dan, you make a strong point. There's no sense in cluttering Mesa with > > additional makefiles, at least not now. Other projects do not do that for > > Android, and Mesa doesn't even do it for beloved Debian. The best approach > > would > > be to maintain the Android makefiles in a separate branch, perhaps even in a > > personal repo. > I do not have a strong motivation to upstream Android support because > > - it requires changes to Android framework > - it introduces yet another build system to Mesa > > I said this a few months back on mesa-user or -dev when asked. > > But generally, I think the not cluttering Mesa with another build > system is debatable. I know I conflict with myself here, but if > someone ports Mesa to arguably the most widely used OS and would like > to upstream it, should we shut it down because the OS _requires_ its > own build system? Incidentally, gstreamer has Android.mk upstream.
Will a single set of Android.mk files work for all potentially relevant Android trees? > > To fix the existing build infrastructure to support Android, I would like to > > extract source lists for some targets into a shared makefile, similiar to > > what > > has been done with src/mesa/sources.mak. Jose suggested this, and I think > > this > > is the best way to continue. > Yes, that surely will make the out-of-tree port be more future proof. > I think we can make SCons parses the source list too. That would be awesome. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
