[flashrom] Re: Current state of meson
On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 05:41, David Hendricks wrote: > > `-o` option not working at all. When helping others via IRC, we > > recommend fetching flashrom logs using that option so that no messages > > get lost, so not being able to rely on it is rather inconvenient. > Ouch... Yeah, that shouldn't happen. I've created a trivial gerrit patch here, feedback welcome: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/42230 Richard ___ flashrom mailing list -- flashrom@flashrom.org To unsubscribe send an email to flashrom-le...@flashrom.org
[flashrom] Re: Current state of meson
On 26.05.20 20:27, Stefan Tauner wrote: > On Tue, 26 May 2020 19:20:47 +0100 > Richard Hughes wrote: > >> Have you tried to build flashrom on Debian or Fedora using the >> built-in makefiles? They're fine for building the software locally on >> x86, but not much more. > The makefile is able to build flashrom on about any operating system > there is (including all BSDs, Windows, AppleOS, Solaris) for all > architectures (with the right programmers enabled if need be) - > natively and with cross compilers. > At least it used to when I stopped maintaining. AFAIK that is still the case. AFAICS the classic Makefile has all the features Meson has (even libflashrom), but not the other way round. An interesting test case would be to reproducibly build flashrom and libflashrom with both meson and Makefile, and then check if any differences arise. Any such difference could then be upgraded to a CI failure. Regards, Carl-Daniel ___ flashrom mailing list -- flashrom@flashrom.org To unsubscribe send an email to flashrom-le...@flashrom.org
[flashrom] Re: Current state of meson
On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 05:41, David Hendricks wrote: > > currently not submittable due to merge conflicts and has not been > > touched in two months. > To be fair, that's not a lot of time when we're talking about flashrom... Also we're in the middle of a global pandemic, with a lot of us juggling childcare, work and all our other commitments. Richard. ___ flashrom mailing list -- flashrom@flashrom.org To unsubscribe send an email to flashrom-le...@flashrom.org
[flashrom] Re: Current state of meson
> Well, as I stated previously, flashrom built with meson results in the > `-o` option not working at all. When helping others via IRC, we > recommend fetching flashrom logs using that option so that no messages > get lost, so not being able to rely on it is rather inconvenient. Ouch... Yeah, that shouldn't happen. > I can see [1] that you have two changes on gerrit, one of which is > currently not submittable due to merge conflicts and has not been > touched in two months. To be fair, that's not a lot of time when we're talking about flashrom... > Are there any > future plans for meson, such as making Jenkins build-test it? Edward > O'Callaghan is working on unit testing [2], and it would be great if > Jenkins could actually run these tests alongside the usual build > tests. There isn't a thing such as too much coverage, or is there? :-P Patrick already chimed in, w.r.t. Jenkins. Automating some QA has been on my todo list for a while, and I'm in between jobs at the moment so I'll finally have a bit of time to work on it :-) Overall I'd like to keep meson support working for fwupd. Like ChromeOS it's a valuable user that provides development, hardware support, and testing on realworld hardware at the cost of a few relatively minor bumps. It's better to work with those communities rather than them forking or reinventing flashrom. ___ flashrom mailing list -- flashrom@flashrom.org To unsubscribe send an email to flashrom-le...@flashrom.org
[flashrom] Re: Current state of meson
On Tue, 26 May 2020 19:20:47 +0100 Richard Hughes wrote: > Have you tried to build flashrom on Debian or Fedora using the > built-in makefiles? They're fine for building the software locally on > x86, but not much more. The makefile is able to build flashrom on about any operating system there is (including all BSDs, Windows, AppleOS, Solaris) for all architectures (with the right programmers enabled if need be) - natively and with cross compilers. At least it used to when I stopped maintaining. -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner ___ flashrom mailing list -- flashrom@flashrom.org To unsubscribe send an email to flashrom-le...@flashrom.org
[flashrom] Re: Current state of meson
On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 16:03, Angel Pons wrote: > Well, as I stated previously, flashrom built with meson results in the > `-o` option not working at all. When helping others via IRC, we > recommend fetching flashrom logs using that option so that no messages > get lost, so not being able to rely on it is rather inconvenient. Is there a bug open? Meson defines -DSTANDALONE in the top level, perhaps incorrectly. Something like +++ meson.build @@ -415,7 +415,6 @@ executable( ], c_args : [ cargs, -'-DSTANDALONE', '-DCONFIG_DEFAULT_PROGRAMMER=PROGRAMMER_INVALID', '-DCONFIG_DEFAULT_PROGRAMMER_ARGS=""', ], Should fix this, although I can't remember the reason we used it in the first place. There is no documentation of the expected defines, so I might have got it wrong initially. If so, mea culpa. I'm on PTO this week looking after kids, so I can't do a proper gerrit review until next week. In the meantime, if someone else wants do that for me I'd really appreciate the help. > > > Meson is no less broken than our home-grown Makefiles. > > Can you substantiate that? > Please refer to the aforementioned bug about `-o` not being usable > when building with meson. While the home-grown Makefiles may have > bugs, they have survived the test of time Have you tried to build flashrom on Debian or Fedora using the built-in makefiles? They're fine for building the software locally on x86, but not much more. > If possible, I would consider turning meson into a wrapper around the > Makefiles, to eliminate redundancy. That's not how meson works at all. The meson build system won't "wrap" any other build system. You'll also notice the size of the meson files compared to the size of the Makefiles; meson is a chance to get rid of a lot of compat cruft and build projects with a specific DSL. On the converse, you can use make to build the project using meson although I think a few people might have problems with a python dep for build. Richard. ___ flashrom mailing list -- flashrom@flashrom.org To unsubscribe send an email to flashrom-le...@flashrom.org
[flashrom] Re: Current state of meson
Hi Richard, Jonathan, and everyone else, On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:00 PM Richard Hughes wrote: > > On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 00:20, Angel Pons wrote: > > So, given that meson produces broken executables and nobody seems to > > be actively taking care of it > > Errr, I am taking care of it. Is it broken now? Well, as I stated previously, flashrom built with meson results in the `-o` option not working at all. When helping others via IRC, we recommend fetching flashrom logs using that option so that no messages get lost, so not being able to rely on it is rather inconvenient. I can see [1] that you have two changes on gerrit, one of which is currently not submittable due to merge conflicts and has not been touched in two months. As far as I can tell, that's it. Are there any future plans for meson, such as making Jenkins build-test it? Edward O'Callaghan is working on unit testing [2], and it would be great if Jenkins could actually run these tests alongside the usual build tests. There isn't a thing such as too much coverage, or is there? :-P Feel free to propose any ideas here in the mailing list, so that we can discuss them beforehand. Working on something big without having previously talked it through with the rest of the community is dangerous: one can end up wasting lots of time working on something that is then rejected, then emotions overflow and then everyone and everything ends up on fire... I've had that happen several times and it has always been extremely frustrating, so let's do it right this time, shall we? :-) On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:03 PM Richard Hughes wrote: > > On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 03:27, Jonathan A. Kollasch > wrote: > > Remove meson support. > > Removing meson support from flashrom would mean dropping the fwupd > plugin that uses libflashrom; we have to build flashrom from a > subproject as very often we're depending the very latest API > additions. I believe dropping meson support should only be a last-resort measure, so I brought up the topic on the mailing list to calmly and respectfully exchange ideas about it and work towards improvement. Let's be honest, we will never be able to make each and every being on this planet completely happy, but we can surely attempt to find a middle ground that is good enough for all of us, the flashrom community. > > Meson is no less broken than our home-grown Makefiles. > > Can you substantiate that? Please refer to the aforementioned bug about `-o` not being usable when building with meson. While the home-grown Makefiles may have bugs, they have survived the test of time and should be considered the official way to build flashrom, especially considering that Jenkins relies on them to build-test flashrom patches. If possible, I would consider turning meson into a wrapper around the Makefiles, to eliminate redundancy. However, as I do not know a thing about meson, I have no idea if such a thing is doable. As you seem to be more familiar with meson than I am, what are your thoughts on this idea? Is there a better way to handle that? > Richard. Best regards, Angel [1]: https://review.coreboot.org/q/owner:richard%2540hughsie.com [2]: https://review.coreboot.org/41622 ___ flashrom mailing list -- flashrom@flashrom.org To unsubscribe send an email to flashrom-le...@flashrom.org
[flashrom] Re: Current state of meson
On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 03:27, Jonathan A. Kollasch wrote: > Remove meson support. Removing meson support from flashrom would mean dropping the fwupd plugin that uses libflashrom; we have to build flashrom from a subproject as very often we're depending the very latest API additions. > Meson is no less broken than our home-grown Makefiles. Can you substantiate that? Richard. ___ flashrom mailing list -- flashrom@flashrom.org To unsubscribe send an email to flashrom-le...@flashrom.org
[flashrom] Re: Current state of meson
On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 00:20, Angel Pons wrote: > So, given that meson produces broken executables and nobody seems to > be actively taking care of it Errr, I am taking care of it. Is it broken now? Richard. ___ flashrom mailing list -- flashrom@flashrom.org To unsubscribe send an email to flashrom-le...@flashrom.org
[flashrom] Re: Current state of meson
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 11:20:21PM +, Angel Pons wrote: > So, given that meson produces broken executables and nobody seems to > be actively taking care of it, what should we do with it? Is anyone > interested in improving and maintaining the meson integration? All > suggestions are welcome. Remove meson support. Meson is no less broken than our home-grown Makefiles. Jonathan ___ flashrom mailing list -- flashrom@flashrom.org To unsubscribe send an email to flashrom-le...@flashrom.org
