Re: Proposal for Gnome Goal (was Re: Switching from Autotools to CMake for core evolution products)

Le lundi 10 octobre 2016 à 22:51 +0900, Tristan Van Berkom a écrit : > > I would caution against using only JHBuild as a metric for Meson's > maturity. Rather I would recommend starting at the lower end of the > stack, say try to port glib/GTK+ over to use Meson in a wip branch, > and > then see

Re: Proposal for Gnome Goal (was Re: Switching from Autotools to CMake for core evolution products)

On Thu, 2016-10-13 at 10:18 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Thu, 2016-10-13 at 11:53 +0100, Sam Thursfield wrote: > > Would a GNOME-goal to ensure that every project follows the Build > > API > > help > > here? > > > What do the meson developers think about the Build API? > > I think I

Re: Proposal for Gnome Goal (was Re: Switching from Autotools to CMake for core evolution products)

On Thu, 2016-10-13 at 11:53 +0100, Sam Thursfield wrote: > Would a GNOME-goal to ensure that every project follows the Build API > help > here? What do the meson developers think about the Build API? I think I would not support such a goal. I do not want to add a boilerplate fake configure

Re: Proposal for Gnome Goal (was Re: Switching from Autotools to CMake for core evolution products)

Hello, On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Sam Thursfield wrote: > I agree with the sentiments above that Meson isn't quite ready for this > yet. I've tried Meson out for 2 projects (Tracker and Rhythmbox) and in > both cases there have been several patches needed to Meson, some

Re: Proposal for Gnome Goal (was Re: Switching from Autotools to CMake for core evolution products)

On 05/10/16 15:39, Michael Biebl wrote: >As much as I hate autotools and its arcane syntax, it does bring >uniformity and consistency. >Atm I'm counting waf (for some non-core modules), autotools, cmake and >some are discussing to use meson/ninja. >So while I'm not tied to

Re: Proposal for Gnome Goal (was Re: Switching from Autotools to CMake for core evolution products)

On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 08:39 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 10:04 +0100, Philip Withnall wrote: > > > > I don’t think we’ve ported enough modules as testbeds yet. Meson is > > too new > > to jump into encouraging everyone to port GNOME modules en-masse. > > > > Maybe the

Re: Proposal for Gnome Goal (was Re: Switching from Autotools to CMake for core evolution products)

On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 10:04 +0100, Philip Withnall wrote: > I don’t think we’ve ported enough modules as testbeds yet. Meson is > too new > to jump into encouraging everyone to port GNOME modules en-masse. > > Maybe the goal could be proposed in 6 months once Meson has matured a > bit > more and

Re: Proposal for Gnome Goal (was Re: Switching from Autotools to CMake for core evolution products)

On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 10:49 +0200, Sebastian Geiger (Lanoxx) wrote: > On 05/10/16 15:39, Michael Biebl wrote: > > So while I'm not tied to autotools, I would hate to see if every > > modules maintainer chooses his/her own build system of choice. This > > makes it really cumbersome as

Re: Proposal for Gnome Goal (was Re: Switching from Autotools to CMake for core evolution products)

On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 10:49 +0200, Sebastian Geiger (Lanoxx) wrote: > On 05/10/16 15:39, Michael Biebl wrote: > > > > > As much as I hate autotools and its arcane syntax, it does bring > > uniformity and consistency. > > Atm I'm counting waf (for some non-core modules), autotools, cmake and > >

Proposal for Gnome Goal (was Re: Switching from Autotools to CMake for core evolution products)

On 05/10/16 15:39, Michael Biebl wrote: As much as I hate autotools and its arcane syntax, it does bring uniformity and consistency. Atm I'm counting waf (for some non-core modules), autotools, cmake and some are discussing to use meson/ninja. So while I'm not tied to autotools, I would hate