Hi Dylan,
The architecture name in Debian is definitely ppc64el (not ppc64le).
However, it's the IBM Power platform (POWER8) running in little endian mode
(which yes, is confusing).
https://wiki.debian.org/ppc64el
https://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/ppc64el
FWIW: Apparently there's
Quoting Timo Aaltonen (2018-12-03 11:03:59)
> On 3.12.2018 20.54, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > Quoting Timo Aaltonen (2018-12-03 10:36:12)
> >> On 3.12.2018 20.25, Emil Velikov wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 17:49, Dylan Baker wrote:
>
> Quoting Emil Velikov (2018-12-03 07:54:38)
> >
On 3.12.2018 20.54, Dylan Baker wrote:
> Quoting Timo Aaltonen (2018-12-03 10:36:12)
>> On 3.12.2018 20.25, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>> On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 17:49, Dylan Baker wrote:
Quoting Emil Velikov (2018-12-03 07:54:38)
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 17:44, Emil
Quoting Timo Aaltonen (2018-12-03 10:36:12)
> On 3.12.2018 20.25, Emil Velikov wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 17:49, Dylan Baker wrote:
> >>
> >> Quoting Emil Velikov (2018-12-03 07:54:38)
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 17:44, Emil Velikov
> >>> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
Quoting Emil Velikov (2018-12-03 10:25:48)
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 17:49, Dylan Baker wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Emil Velikov (2018-12-03 07:54:38)
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 17:44, Emil Velikov
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I can see why people may opt
On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 10:28 AM Emil Velikov wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 17:49, Dylan Baker wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Emil Velikov (2018-12-03 07:54:38)
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 17:44, Emil Velikov
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I can see why
On 3.12.2018 20.25, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 17:49, Dylan Baker wrote:
>>
>> Quoting Emil Velikov (2018-12-03 07:54:38)
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 17:44, Emil Velikov wrote:
Hi all,
I can see why people may opt to not use or maintain the
On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 17:49, Dylan Baker wrote:
>
> Quoting Emil Velikov (2018-12-03 07:54:38)
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 17:44, Emil Velikov wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I can see why people may opt to not use or maintain the autotools build.
> > > Although I would
Quoting Dave Airlie (2018-11-30 12:16:10)
>
> On Wed., 28 Nov. 2018, 03:06 Matt Turner
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:13 AM Timo Aaltonen wrote:
> >
> > On 17.11.2018 6.04, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > > Quoting Dylan Baker (2018-09-17 09:44:07)
> > >> I feel like for !windows meson
Quoting Emil Velikov (2018-12-03 07:54:38)
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 17:44, Emil Velikov wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I can see why people may opt to not use or maintain the autotools build.
> > Although I would kindly ask that we do not remove it just yet.
> >
> > In Mesa, we have
Hi all,
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 17:44, Emil Velikov wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I can see why people may opt to not use or maintain the autotools build.
> Although I would kindly ask that we do not remove it just yet.
>
> In Mesa, we have different parts not used by different teams. As such
> we tend
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 2:45 PM Matt Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 2:28 AM Gert Wollny wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, den 29.11.2018, 17:44 + schrieb Emil Velikov:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I can see why people may opt to not use or maintain the autotools
> > > build. Although I would
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 2:28 AM Gert Wollny wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 29.11.2018, 17:44 + schrieb Emil Velikov:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I can see why people may opt to not use or maintain the autotools
> > build. Although I would kindly ask that we do not remove it just yet.
>
> I second that,
On Wed., 28 Nov. 2018, 03:06 Matt Turner On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:13 AM Timo Aaltonen wrote:
> >
> > On 17.11.2018 6.04, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > > Quoting Dylan Baker (2018-09-17 09:44:07)
> > >> I feel like for !windows meson is in good enough shape at this point
> that we
> > >> can start
Hello all,
Am Donnerstag, den 29.11.2018, 17:44 + schrieb Emil Velikov:
> Hi all,
>
> I can see why people may opt to not use or maintain the autotools
> build. Although I would kindly ask that we do not remove it just yet.
I second that, I think the process of removing autotools should be
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 17:44:47 +
Emil Velikov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I can see why people may opt to not use or maintain the autotools build.
> Although I would kindly ask that we do not remove it just yet.
>
> In Mesa, we have different parts not used by different teams. As such
> we tend to
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 5:49 PM Alex Deucher wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 8:26 PM Eric Anholt wrote:
> >
> > Emil Velikov writes:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I can see why people may opt to not use or maintain the autotools build.
> > > Although I would kindly ask that we do not remove
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 9:19 PM Jason Ekstrand wrote:
>
> On November 29, 2018 19:49:33 Alex Deucher wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 8:26 PM Eric Anholt wrote:
> >>
> >> Emil Velikov writes:
> >>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I can see why people may opt to not use or maintain the autotools
On November 29, 2018 19:49:33 Alex Deucher wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 8:26 PM Eric Anholt wrote:
Emil Velikov writes:
Hi all,
I can see why people may opt to not use or maintain the autotools build.
Although I would kindly ask that we do not remove it just yet.
In Mesa, we have
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 8:26 PM Eric Anholt wrote:
>
> Emil Velikov writes:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I can see why people may opt to not use or maintain the autotools build.
> > Although I would kindly ask that we do not remove it just yet.
> >
> > In Mesa, we have different parts not used by
Emil Velikov writes:
> Hi all,
>
> I can see why people may opt to not use or maintain the autotools build.
> Although I would kindly ask that we do not remove it just yet.
>
> In Mesa, we have different parts not used by different teams. As such
> we tend to remove stuff when nobody is around
Quoting Timo Aaltonen (2018-11-29 10:33:30)
> On 29.11.2018 20.22, Matt Turner wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 9:47 AM Emil Velikov
> > wrote:
> >> In Mesa, we have different parts not used by different teams. As such
> >> we tend to remove stuff when nobody is around to maintain it anymore.
On 29.11.2018 20.22, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 9:47 AM Emil Velikov wrote:
>> In Mesa, we have different parts not used by different teams. As such
>> we tend to remove stuff when nobody is around to maintain it anymore.
>
> We drop things for that reason, but also when
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 9:47 AM Emil Velikov wrote:
> In Mesa, we have different parts not used by different teams. As such
> we tend to remove stuff when nobody is around to maintain it anymore.
We drop things for that reason, but also when something is no longer
needed. I don't think autotools
Hi all,
I can see why people may opt to not use or maintain the autotools build.
Although I would kindly ask that we do not remove it just yet.
In Mesa, we have different parts not used by different teams. As such
we tend to remove stuff when nobody is around to maintain it anymore.
That said,
On 27.11.2018 19.42, Eero Tamminen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 27.11.2018 19.05, Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:13 AM Timo Aaltonen
>> wrote:
>>> On 17.11.2018 6.04, Dylan Baker wrote:
Quoting Dylan Baker (2018-09-17 09:44:07)
> I feel like for !windows meson is in good enough
On 27.11.2018 19.05, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:13 AM Timo Aaltonen wrote:
>>
>> On 17.11.2018 6.04, Dylan Baker wrote:
>>> Quoting Dylan Baker (2018-09-17 09:44:07)
I feel like for !windows meson is in good enough shape at this point that
we
can start having
Hi,
On 27.11.2018 19.05, Matt Turner wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:13 AM Timo Aaltonen wrote:
On 17.11.2018 6.04, Dylan Baker wrote:
Quoting Dylan Baker (2018-09-17 09:44:07)
I feel like for !windows meson is in good enough shape at this point that we
can start having the discussion
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:13 AM Timo Aaltonen wrote:
>
> On 17.11.2018 6.04, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > Quoting Dylan Baker (2018-09-17 09:44:07)
> >> I feel like for !windows meson is in good enough shape at this point that
> >> we
> >> can start having the discussion about deleting the autotools
On 27.11.2018 12.20, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 11:13 +0200, Timo Aaltonen wrote:
>> On 17.11.2018 6.04, Dylan Baker wrote:
>>> Quoting Dylan Baker (2018-09-17 09:44:07)
I feel like for !windows meson is in good enough shape at this
point that we
can start having
On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 11:13 +0200, Timo Aaltonen wrote:
> On 17.11.2018 6.04, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > Quoting Dylan Baker (2018-09-17 09:44:07)
> > > I feel like for !windows meson is in good enough shape at this
> > > point that we
> > > can start having the discussion about deleting the autotools
On 17.11.2018 6.04, Dylan Baker wrote:
> Quoting Dylan Baker (2018-09-17 09:44:07)
>> I feel like for !windows meson is in good enough shape at this point that we
>> can start having the discussion about deleting the autotools build. So, is
>> there
>> anything left that autotools can do that
Ian Romanick writes:
> On 11/26/2018 03:44 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
>> I don't run meson. I have a script that runs meson. I want to just run
>> the script and I want to it configure or reconfigure.
>>
>> I don't want to add this failure path into my script: "meson ... ||
>> meson --reconfigure
On 11/26/2018 03:44 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> I don't run meson. I have a script that runs meson. I want to just run
> the script and I want to it configure or reconfigure.
>
> I don't want to add this failure path into my script: "meson ... ||
> meson --reconfigure ..."
I have a similar build
I don't run meson. I have a script that runs meson. I want to just run the
script and I want to it configure or reconfigure.
I don't want to add this failure path into my script: "meson ... || meson
--reconfigure ..."
Marek
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 6:36 PM Dylan Baker wrote:
> You mean you
You mean you want to change the driver list?
meson builddir
meson configure builddir -Ddri-drivers= -Dvulkan-drivers=
-Dgallium-drivers=radeonsi
ninja -C builddir # which will trigger a reconfigure
Or was there something else you are trying to do?
Dylan
Quoting Marek Olšák (2018-11-26
meson has a design defect that annoys me. I have a configure script. If I
want to change enabled drivers and run meson, it won't configure because
the directory exists, even if the meson parameters are different. I have to
add --reconfigure manually into the script. If I keep --reconfigure in the
The VA-API state tracker has been fixed, that was a bug.
For wayland, I'm not sure what the right thing to do is. The autotools build is
equally rigid compared to meson, but it only enables surfaceless and x11 by
default on Linux and *BSD, meson enables wayland and drm as well.
I think we can
Was there any conclusion on the idea of "auto" in having the build try to
adapt to your systems by default instead of just assuming a configuration?
That's the biggest issue I see at the momemt; for many options the current
auto-tools build tries to adapt to your system and for the most part does
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 11:05 PM Dylan Baker wrote:
> Quoting Dylan Baker (2018-09-17 09:44:07)
> > I feel like for !windows meson is in good enough shape at this point
> that we
> > can start having the discussion about deleting the autotools build. So,
> is there
> > anything left that
One thing I always go to the autoconfig webpage for is to copy and paste
the line for a 32bit cross-compiled mesa build.
It would be good if someone could document the method for cross
compiling on the meson page before we remove autotools.
[1] https://www.mesa3d.org/autoconf.html
On
Hey Dylan,
Dylan Baker wrote on 19.11.18 20:02:
> Sorry, cell phones are really bad for responding to email...
no worries.
> The file has the same rules as cross files, it can be a local file, passed as
> an
> absolute path, or read from $XDG directories (local files will be read before
> XDG
Quoting Gert Wollny (2018-11-18 02:56:00)
> Am Freitag, den 16.11.2018, 20:04 -0800 schrieb Dylan Baker:
> >
> > Is there anything else we're missing in meson to be able to drop
> > autotools?
>
> One thing that I notes is that it seems to be impossible to run the
> test suite for just one
Quoting Gert Wollny (2018-11-18 02:56:00)
> Am Freitag, den 16.11.2018, 20:04 -0800 schrieb Dylan Baker:
> >
> > Is there anything else we're missing in meson to be able to drop
> > autotools?
>
> One thing that I notes is that it seems to be impossible to run the
> test suite for just one
Sorry, cell phones are really bad for responding to email...
The file has the same rules as cross files, it can be a local file, passed as an
absolute path, or read from $XDG directories (local files will be read before
XDG ones).
Dylan
Quoting Dylan Baker (2018-11-18 09:01:27)
> That file can
That file can live anywhere and can be referenced by absolute path.
On November 17, 2018 9:15:20 AM PST, "Kai Wasserbäch"
wrote:
>Hey Dylan,
>Dylan Baker wrote on 17.11.18 05:04:
>> Quoting Dylan Baker (2018-09-17 09:44:07)
>>> I feel like for !windows meson is in good enough shape at this
Am Freitag, den 16.11.2018, 20:04 -0800 schrieb Dylan Baker:
>
> Is there anything else we're missing in meson to be able to drop
> autotools?
One thing that I notes is that it seems to be impossible to run the
test suite for just one subdirectory because the only way to run the
build is from
Hey Dylan,
Dylan Baker wrote on 17.11.18 05:04:
> Quoting Dylan Baker (2018-09-17 09:44:07)
>> I feel like for !windows meson is in good enough shape at this point that we
>> can start having the discussion about deleting the autotools build. So, is
>> there
>> anything left that autotools can do
Quoting Dylan Baker (2018-09-17 09:44:07)
> I feel like for !windows meson is in good enough shape at this point that we
> can start having the discussion about deleting the autotools build. So, is
> there
> anything left that autotools can do that meson cannot (that we actually want
> to
>
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 11:38 AM Emil Velikov wrote:
>
> On 20 September 2018 at 19:19, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > 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
On 20 September 2018 at 19:19, Dylan Baker wrote:
> 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
>> > wrote:
>> > > First, I'm fully in support of killing off
On Tuesday, 2018-09-18 13:43:25 -0700, Dylan Baker wrote:
> Quoting Kai Wasserbäch (2018-09-18 11:14:19)
> > Dylan Baker wrote on 9/18/18 6:40 PM:
> > > Quoting Kai Wasserbäch (2018-09-18 08:56:30)
> > >> Dylan Baker wrote on 9/18/18 5:35 PM:
> > >>> [...]
> > >>>
> > >>> This is something we've
Quoting Mathieu Bridon (2018-09-20 08:34:31)
> On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 15:56 +0100, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> > 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,
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
> > wrote:
> > > First, I'm fully in support of killing off autotools woo-hoo to that. And
> > > given the substantial
Quoting Emil Velikov (2018-09-20 07:05:07)
> Hi Dylan,
>
> On 17 September 2018 at 17:44, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > I feel like for !windows meson is in good enough shape at this point that we
> > can start having the discussion about deleting the autotools build. So, is
> > there
> > anything
Hey Dylan,
Dylan Baker wrote on 9/19/18 6:24 PM:
> Quoting Kai Wasserbäch (2018-09-19 08:04:35)
> [...]
>> In any case, thanks for your replies. I'll see if I can scare up some time
>> over
>> the weekend and check if I can get Mesa building with meson. Nevertheless I'd
>> like to ask for not
On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 15:56 +0100, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> 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
> >
Hi Chuck,
On 20 September 2018 at 16:03, Chuck Atkins wrote:
> ...
>>
>> Distributions already explicitly specify what they want and most of
>> our autodetection is effectively a bad copy of that.
>
>
> The big difference vs gnome is that *most* gnome packages are consumed by
> users only as
Hi Emil,
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.
>
I can certainly sympathize here. I maintain a ton of build infrastructure
for a wide variety of projects
Hi Emil,
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 15:36, Emil Velikov wrote:
> Mildly related: when using meson, make that you have patchelf or similar tool.
> It nukes the RPATH, removing the need to relink the binaries [as it
> happens on make install].
>
> Perhaps meson should error out when that's missing?
On Thursday, 2018-09-20 15:28:09 +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
> Hi Chuck,
>
> On 18 September 2018 at 16:00, Chuck Atkins 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
On 18 September 2018 at 20:16, Gert Wollny wrote:
> Am Montag, den 17.09.2018, 17:07 -0400 schrieb Marek Olšák:
>> I don't see radeonsi_dri.so. How/where is radeonsi_dri.so created?
> +1
>
> With autotools I can use an uninstalled but compiled version of meson
> (e.g. for testing) by pointing
Hi Chuck,
On 18 September 2018 at 16:00, Chuck Atkins 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
On 18 September 2018 at 15:43, Kai Wasserbäch
wrote:
> Hey,
> Dylan Baker wrote on 9/17/18 6:44 PM:
>> I feel like for !windows meson is in good enough shape at this point that we
>> can start having the discussion about deleting the autotools build. So, is
>> there
>> anything left that
On 18 September 2018 at 01:49, Marek Olšák wrote:
> One missing feature is --with-sha1=. libcrypto has an unstable ABI and
> Steam uses it. For Mesa to work with Steam, libnettle has/had to be
> used instead.
>
--with-sha1 was nuked back in Jan 2017 with commit
On 17 September 2018 at 22:23, Marek Olšák wrote:
> What's the rationale for enabling glx-tls by default without the
> option to change it?
>
Toggling the option changes the ABI produced. Esp. when you consider
earlier Xservers where libglx.so was a major user.
The early Intel QA team had _ton_
Hi Dylan,
On 17 September 2018 at 17:44, Dylan Baker wrote:
> I feel like for !windows meson is in good enough shape at this point that we
> can start having the discussion about deleting the autotools build. So, is
> there
> anything left that autotools can do that meson cannot (that we
Quoting Kai Wasserbäch (2018-09-19 08:04:35)
> Hey Dylan,
> Dylan Baker wrote on 9/18/18 10:43 PM:
> > Quoting Kai Wasserbäch (2018-09-18 11:14:19)
> >> Dylan Baker wrote on 9/18/18 6:40 PM:
> >>> Quoting Kai Wasserbäch (2018-09-18 08:56:30)
> Dylan Baker wrote on 9/18/18 5:35 PM:
> >
Quoting Ilia Mirkin (2018-09-17 17:56:15)
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > I feel like for !windows meson is in good enough shape at this point that we
> > can start having the discussion about deleting the autotools build. So, is
> > there
> > anything left that
On 09/18/2018 10:38 AM, Dylan Baker wrote:
> Quoting Eric Engestrom (2018-09-18 09:59:22)
>> On Tuesday, 2018-09-18 09:35:20 -0700, Dylan Baker wrote:
>>> Quoting Eric Engestrom (2018-09-18 09:00:49)
On Tuesday, 2018-09-18 08:24:52 -0700, Dylan Baker wrote:
> Quoting Kenneth Graunke
On 09/18/2018 12:16 PM, Gert Wollny wrote:
> Am Montag, den 17.09.2018, 17:07 -0400 schrieb Marek Olšák:
>> I don't see radeonsi_dri.so. How/where is radeonsi_dri.so created?
> +1
>
> With autotools I can use an uninstalled but compiled version of meson
> (e.g. for testing) by pointing
Hey Dylan,
Dylan Baker wrote on 9/18/18 10:43 PM:
> Quoting Kai Wasserbäch (2018-09-18 11:14:19)
>> Dylan Baker wrote on 9/18/18 6:40 PM:
>>> Quoting Kai Wasserbäch (2018-09-18 08:56:30)
Dylan Baker wrote on 9/18/18 5:35 PM:
> [...]
>
> The other option you have it to set the
Quoting Adam Jackson (2018-09-18 13:57:18)
> On Tue, 2018-09-18 at 13:50 -0700, Dylan Baker wrote:
>
> > > It would be nice if meson would act like autotools in that regard by
> > > creating the drivers and libraries in specific directories (also as a
> > > configure option if there is concern
On Tue, 2018-09-18 at 13:50 -0700, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > It would be nice if meson would act like autotools in that regard by
> > creating the drivers and libraries in specific directories (also as a
> > configure option if there is concern about compilation speed).
>
> This is impossible by
Quoting Gert Wollny (2018-09-18 12:16:01)
> Am Montag, den 17.09.2018, 17:07 -0400 schrieb Marek Ol\u0161ák:
> > I don't see radeonsi_dri.so. How/where is radeonsi_dri.so created?
> +1
>
> With autotools I can use an uninstalled but compiled version of meson
> (e.g. for testing) by pointing
Quoting Kai Wasserbäch (2018-09-18 11:14:19)
> Dylan Baker wrote on 9/18/18 6:40 PM:
> > Quoting Kai Wasserbäch (2018-09-18 08:56:30)
> >> Dylan Baker wrote on 9/18/18 5:35 PM:
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>> This is something we've discussed upstream several times. I will freely
> >>> admit
> >>> that
Am Montag, den 17.09.2018, 17:07 -0400 schrieb Marek Olšák:
> I don't see radeonsi_dri.so. How/where is radeonsi_dri.so created?
+1
With autotools I can use an uninstalled but compiled version of meson
(e.g. for testing) by pointing LD_LIBRARY_PATH and LIBGL_DRIVERS_PATH
to the $BUILDDIR/lib and
Dylan Baker wrote on 9/18/18 6:40 PM:
> Quoting Kai Wasserbäch (2018-09-18 08:56:30)
>> Dylan Baker wrote on 9/18/18 5:35 PM:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> This is something we've discussed upstream several times. I will freely
>>> admit
>>> that llvm-config is a huge pain in the ass to deal with for a ton
Quoting Eric Engestrom (2018-09-18 09:59:22)
> On Tuesday, 2018-09-18 09:35:20 -0700, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > Quoting Eric Engestrom (2018-09-18 09:00:49)
> > > On Tuesday, 2018-09-18 08:24:52 -0700, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > > > Quoting Kenneth Graunke (2018-09-18 01:40:48)
> > > > > On Monday,
On Tuesday, 2018-09-18 09:35:20 -0700, Dylan Baker wrote:
> Quoting Eric Engestrom (2018-09-18 09:00:49)
> > On Tuesday, 2018-09-18 08:24:52 -0700, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > > Quoting Kenneth Graunke (2018-09-18 01:40:48)
> > > > On Monday, September 17, 2018 3:24:56 PM PDT Dylan Baker wrote:
> > > >
Quoting Eric Engestrom (2018-09-18 09:00:49)
> On Tuesday, 2018-09-18 08:24:52 -0700, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > Quoting Kenneth Graunke (2018-09-18 01:40:48)
> > > On Monday, September 17, 2018 3:24:56 PM PDT Dylan Baker wrote:
> > > > Quoting Marek Ol\u0161ák (2018-09-17 15:14:11)
> > > > > How do I
Quoting Kai Wasserbäch (2018-09-18 08:56:30)
> Dylan Baker wrote on 9/18/18 5:35 PM:
> > Quoting Kai Wasserbäch (2018-09-18 07:43:08)
> >> Hey,
> >> Dylan Baker wrote on 9/17/18 6:44 PM:
> >>> I feel like for !windows meson is in good enough shape at this point that
> >>> we
> >>> can start
Quoting Chuck Atkins (2018-09-18 08:00:44)
> 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
On Tuesday, 2018-09-18 08:24:52 -0700, Dylan Baker wrote:
> Quoting Kenneth Graunke (2018-09-18 01:40:48)
> > On Monday, September 17, 2018 3:24:56 PM PDT Dylan Baker wrote:
> > > Quoting Marek Olšák (2018-09-17 15:14:11)
> > > > How do I build 32-bit Mesa with meson?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> >
Dylan Baker wrote on 9/18/18 5:35 PM:
> Quoting Kai Wasserbäch (2018-09-18 07:43:08)
>> Hey,
>> Dylan Baker wrote on 9/17/18 6:44 PM:
>>> I feel like for !windows meson is in good enough shape at this point that we
>>> can start having the discussion about deleting the autotools build. So, is
>>>
Quoting Brian Paul (2018-09-17 20:02:21)
> Hi Dylan,
>
> I have my 32-bit cross-compile working, but "ninja -C builddir install"
> isn't putting the 32-bit libs and drivers in the right place.
>
> I've been playing with the meson --prefix option and the
> -Ddri-drivers-path=foo option but
Quoting Kai Wasserbäch (2018-09-18 07:43:08)
> Hey,
> Dylan Baker wrote on 9/17/18 6:44 PM:
> > I feel like for !windows meson is in good enough shape at this point that we
> > can start having the discussion about deleting the autotools build. So, is
> > there
> > anything left that autotools
Quoting Ilia Mirkin (2018-09-17 17:56:15)
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > I feel like for !windows meson is in good enough shape at this point that we
> > can start having the discussion about deleting the autotools build. So, is
> > there
> > anything left that
Quoting Kenneth Graunke (2018-09-18 01:40:48)
> On Monday, September 17, 2018 3:24:56 PM PDT Dylan Baker wrote:
> > Quoting Marek Olšák (2018-09-17 15:14:11)
> > > How do I build 32-bit Mesa with meson?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Marek
> > >
> >
> > Some people get away with just adding
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
Hey,
Dylan Baker wrote on 9/17/18 6:44 PM:
> I feel like for !windows meson is in good enough shape at this point that we
> can start having the discussion about deleting the autotools build. So, is
> there
> anything left that autotools can do that meson cannot (that we actually want
> to
>
On Monday, 2018-09-17 17:25:36 -0400, Marek Olšák wrote:
> Where do I find default values for meson configure options?
If you mean the project's options, they're in meson_options.txt;
currently not printed in the output of `meson configure` though.
If you mean Meson's own options (like
On Monday, 2018-09-17 18:11:37 -0400, Marek Olšák wrote:
> 'meson configure' returns 'auto' for a lot of options. I'm interested
> in what meson chose.
I actually had a couple patches to get that printed, but it got forgotten.
I'll try to pick it back up, rebase it and send it again :)
>
>
On Monday, September 17, 2018 3:24:56 PM PDT Dylan Baker wrote:
> Quoting Marek Olšák (2018-09-17 15:14:11)
> > How do I build 32-bit Mesa with meson?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Marek
> >
>
> Some people get away with just adding CFLAGs=-m32, but using a cross file and
> doing a cross build is a
On Mon, 2018-09-17 at 20:56 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> I'd also encourage writing a new "configure" script which
> echo's instructions on how to operate meson -- it's really not
> obvious, with alternating --prefix=bla -Dfoo=bla argument styles.
> People know how to use autotools, but meson is a
Did you try --libdir /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu ?
Marek
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:02 PM, Brian Paul wrote:
> Hi Dylan,
>
> I have my 32-bit cross-compile working, but "ninja -C builddir install"
> isn't putting the 32-bit libs and drivers in the right place.
>
> I've been playing with the meson
Hi Dylan,
I have my 32-bit cross-compile working, but "ninja -C builddir install"
isn't putting the 32-bit libs and drivers in the right place.
I've been playing with the meson --prefix option and the
-Ddri-drivers-path=foo option but haven't found the right incantation.
On Ubuntu, I want the
Same here. I'm working on updating our internal build scripts to use
Meson. Working through 32-bit cross compile issues now...
-Brian
On 09/17/2018 07:09 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> Other than the --with-sha1 thing, meson works for me.
>
> That said, we need some time to move our internal
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 5:50 PM Marek Olšák wrote:
>
> One missing feature is --with-sha1=. libcrypto has an unstable ABI and
> Steam uses it. For Mesa to work with Steam, libnettle has/had to be
> used instead.
We imported OpenBSD's sha1 implementation a year and a half ago to
avoid all of
Other than the --with-sha1 thing, meson works for me.
That said, we need some time to move our internal builds to meson and
there is a tiny chance that we'll discover some issues.
Removing autotools after 18.3 would be preferable.
Thanks,
Marek
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Dylan Baker
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
