On Nov 13, 2007 12:11 PM, Brian Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ian Romanick wrote: > > Dan Nicholson wrote: > > > >> Since we're not using something like automake to control the build, I > >> was wondering if Mesa could make more use of GNU make conditionals and > >> functions. There are a lot of different ways that Mesa can be built, > >> and I believe it could be much more robust than it currently is. Right > >> now we rely on the configs having sane settings and some carefully > >> placed shell tests (see src/mesa/Makefile). > >> > >> This would have the effect to make the build non-portable from GNU > >> make probably, but I really don't know anything about other make > >> programs. This is already implied since there's some use in the build > >> (see src/mesa/drivers/dri/Makefile.template). > > > > Makefile.template is only used for DRI drivers, not for core Mesa. > > Right now DRI is only supported on Linux and FreeBSD. Both of these > > platforms ship with GNU make by default. However, core Mesa (without > > DRI) is supported on a ton of Unix flavors (HP-UX, AIX, older SunOS, > > etc.) that do not ship with GNU make by default. > > > > That said, GNU make is available for all those platforms. I would > > personally be in favor of requiring GNU make if it will help clean up > > the Mesa build madness even one tiny bit. > > I think src/mesa/Makefile is really the only ugly Makefile. The rest > seem pretty reasonable. > > If that Makefile can be cleaned up substantially by using GNU make, I > could probably live with that. If/when someone on a non-GNU-make system > complains we'll try to help them out. I know of a few people still > using Mesa on non-GNU systems.
I certainly don't want to exclude people from building mesa who've done it successfully before. I sometimes have to use an HP-UX system at work, so I'm aware how painful some of the utilities can be and how difficult it can be to do seemingly trivial tasks. That said, requiring GNU make is not that bad. It's a single executable that should be available on nearly all systems. This certainly wouldn't be the first project to require it. > One way to improve the build process that I was going to look into > sometime is to build static .a lib in each source subdir, then assemble > the relevant .a files into the libGL.so in a reasonable place (like in > drivers/x11 for the stand-alone Xlib Mesa). That seems nice to me. > I'd also consider another build system like cmake. It's supposed to be > fairly powerful and work on Windows too. Of course, cmake requires that the host has it installed, which is another prerequisite. And it requires that the entire mesa build is overhauled. For the same amount of effort, I think you could create a good autotools build that people in the X community are now familiar with (I realize you want nothing to do with automake and don't plan on pushing it on you). -- Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Mesa3d-dev mailing list Mesa3d-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mesa3d-dev
