Quoting Eric Engestrom (2018-09-20 07:56:45) > On Thursday, 2018-09-20 15:28:09 +0100, Emil Velikov wrote: > > Hi Chuck, > > > > On 18 September 2018 at 16:00, Chuck Atkins <chuck.atk...@kitware.com> > > wrote: > > > First, I'm fully in support of killing off autotools woo-hoo to that. And > > > given the substantial investment already put into the meson build that > > > certainly seems like a good direction to go. > > > > > > That being said, the way "auto" is currently implemented leaves quite a > > > bit > > > to be desired. One of the nice features of the Autotools build was how > > > auto-enabled options were treated in that the dependencies were searched > > > for > > > and if they were all found and met then the option would be enabled. My > > > experience so far with the meson build has shown this not to be the case > > > and > > > a "configure" with no options has yet to be successful for me. Many of > > > the > > > 'auto' options are treated as 'set to true if your platform supports it' > > > regardless of whether your system has the requisite dependencies > > > available. > > > For example" > > > > > > The 'gallium-va' option defaults to 'auto' but the implementation ends up > > > setting the '_va' option to true if the other option conditions are met, > > > long before libva is searched for. So then when libva isn't found one > > > gets > > > an error. > > > > > > if set to auto then missing the libva dependencies should be a failure, it > > > should just disable the gallium va state tracker > > > > > > The platform options set to 'auto' has a set of checks to determine which > > > platforms are enabled as required. If the system_has_kms_drm check is > > > true > > > then Wayland is enabled as required. Later if the check for wayland > > > dependencies fails, an error occurs. > > > > > > If platforms are set to auto then a failure to locate dependencies for a > > > given platform should disable the platform. > > > > > > I realize these are just two specific examples, each of which can be > > > readily > > > dealt with in their own specific way so I'm not asking "how to I address > > > #1 > > > and #2?" because I can certainly do that. These are just two instances of > > > many though in the way "auto" is dealt with. My point is really a broader > > > one that before meson becomes the primary build then the behavior of > > > "auto" > > > should create a successful configure out of the box without additional > > > options. > > > > > I would like to revive an idea from a few years ago: > > Drop the "auto" all-together. > > > > It adds a _ton_ of complexity while making the build semi-magical/not > > as deterministic. > > IIRC the Gnome people have been actively working for removing such > > autodetection in their packages. > > > > The only downside is that we may need to tweak our scripts _once_ to > > list exactly what we want to build ;-) > > _Once_ for you, because you have everything already set up, but for all > the new users this means that nothing will work out of the box, they'll > need to understand each and every options and figure out what they need > them set to, before they can even start. > > That sounds like a huge step backwards to me :/
Especially when one of the explicit goals was to support 4 OS families (Unix-like, windows, mac, haiku). To make that all work out of the box we'd end up building *nothing* by default. Dylan
signature.asc
Description: signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev