Re: For projects switching to Meson *only*

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote: I will, but I'll keep the two parallel for at least a release or two. If you need me to add anything specific to keep continuous happy for the time being, let me know. Cheers, Peter Here's a request for

Re: For projects switching to Meson *only*

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 03:24:24PM +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > Replying to both Michael's and Iain at the same time, to reduce the > amount of email. > > On 27 April 2017 at 15:04, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 4:11 AM, Iain Lane

Re: For projects switching to Meson *only*

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: I'd be happier, though, if maintainers that are planning to drop autotools also dropped me a line so that I don't wake up to a string of failed builds and then have to figure out whether or not this was a planned break,

Re: For projects switching to Meson *only*

Replying to both Michael's and Iain at the same time, to reduce the amount of email. On 27 April 2017 at 15:04, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 4:11 AM, Iain Lane wrote: >> >> As it happens I interacted with this script (in

Re: GNOME Build situation and BuildStream

On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 14:41 +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: > Hi Tristan, > [...] > With jhbuild, when we enter into a jhbuild shell we are still in the > same directory, usually inside the git repository. With builddir == > srcdir we have all the files that we can directly open with our >

Re: For projects switching to Meson *only*

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 4:11 AM, Iain Lane wrote: As it happens I interacted with this script (in gnome-software) yesterday. I hadn't got a new enough jhbuild - the one I had was trying to call ./configure instead of meson directly. The script AFAICS ignores unknown

Re: GNOME Build situation and BuildStream

Hi Tristan, For application or library developers (libraries used by applications), I'm a bit struggling to see what the workflow will look like with BuildStream. I've described two examples of my current workflow in this mail:

Re: GNOME Build situation and BuildStream

Hi Matthias, I realize now that this was too much information at once (even for the involved reader as opposed to a fly-by reader). So I'd like to thank you for your mind share. On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 16:39 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > Tristan, > > again, it is impossible to reply to an

Re: For projects switching to Meson *only*

Hiya, Apologies for any ignorance about the scope and intent of the build API. On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 09:45:04AM +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > Hi everyone; > A simple script is available here[2], and it has nice properties, like > being able to work with a simple: > > ./configure > make

Re: For projects switching to Meson *only*

The issue is not writing a simple patch: it takes me about 90 seconds of my life to copy the file, create a commit, format-patch it, and add the patch to gnome-continuous. The whole point would be to avoid adding a patch to Continuous. Additionally, conforming to the build-api is a nice

Re: For projects switching to Meson *only*

Hello Emmanuele, Would be fine if the maintainer does the patch for continuous instead of doing the build-API? Carlos Soriano Original Message Subject: For projects switching to Meson *only* Local Time: 27 April 2017 10:45 AM UTC Time: 27 April 2017 08:45 From:

For projects switching to Meson *only*

Hi everyone; since maintainers have started switching to Meson for the development cycle (awesome!) I'd like to ask for a favour: if you're dropping autotools entirely, could you please add a `configure` wrapper script that conforms to the build-api[1] that GNOME Continuous uses? A simple script