On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Hugo Parente Lima <hugo.l...@openbossa.org> wrote: > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 04:15:48 PM Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> On Jan 30, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpra...@chromium.org> wrote: >> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Filip Pizlo <fpi...@apple.com> wrote: >> >> Thanks for sharing this. >> >> >> >> On Jan 30, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Eric Seidel <e...@webkit.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> I wish we only had one build system (it were easy to add/remove/move >> >> files). >> >> >> >> I believe changes like http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/74849 are an >> >> unhealthy sign for the project. Adam is not the only person who has >> >> chosen >> >> to empty files instead of removing them. The pain of updating 8 build >> >> system is so great, we jump through hoops to avoid it. Which means it >> >> took >> >> us months to move JavaScriptCore/wtf to WTF, and will take us years to >> >> kill >> >> WebCore/platform. >> >> >> >> >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> This is a hard problem. It is a problem worth solving. >> >> >> >> Do you have more thoughts on this, particularly since you know quite well >> >> how both Xcode and gyp work? >> >> >> >> I suspect this is one of those things that it would be hard to achieve >> >> consensus on since there are so many stakeholders. But it may be >> >> fruitful >> >> to have a "what if" discussion about what this might look like. >> > >> > I think we can solve this problem if we agree that we want to. I think >> > we haven't in the past mostly because we couldn't reach a consensus >> > that it was worth solving enough to really try. >> > >> > I would love to see this fixed and would be glad to work on it. I >> > think we should at least pursue this far enough to fully understand >> > what our options are and what the costs and tradeoffs might be; does >> > anyone disagree, and is anyone else willing to help pitch in? >> > >> > I think there are several possible ways we could solve this. One would >> > be to switch to a common meta-build system. My understanding is that >> > Apple's internal production build processes impose certain constraints >> > here that I don't fully understand, but I know we've discussed the >> > possibility of checking in generated project files as a workaround. >> > Maybe there are other options as well to those constraints? I would >> > love to discuss this further w/ someone from Apple ... >> >> It's far simplest for us if: >> (a) There is an Xcode project (or a Makefile) that builds the Mac port >> checked in to source control. (b) The generated project invokes only tools >> that are part of the default Mac OS X install. >> >> It may not be completely impossible to violate these requirements but it >> will require a lot of bureaucracy. >> > (Also, just to get this out of the way, I don't think gyp needs to be >> > the solution). >> > >> > Another alternative would be to write a script that did support at >> > least the common use cases (add/move/delete files). There have been >> > attempts in the past, but they have foundered on at least some >> > perceived skepticism over how well this would work w/ XCode. That >> > said, I don't think we've really pushed this to see. At some point >> > this script might turn into a meta-meta-build system, which might be >> > silly but also be the shortest path to the finish line. >> > >> > I suggest if there is interest in this we can start a new thread to >> > discuss further ... >> >> My preference would be to use a common meta-build system with a comfortably >> human-readable and human-editable syntax, and checked in generated project >> files for those ports that need them. >> >> I think a key to making this work is to get Chromium and the Apple Mac port >> onto a common build system, which will probably require both Google and >> Apple ponying up at least one person to work on this project for a >> reasonable period of time. >> >> I think the plausible meta-build-systems to use would be CMake and Gyp, but >> in both cases it may be necessary to modify them to work well for everyone. >> >> I'd also like to add that I think a key related issue to common build system >> is common feature configuration. The many different ways ports control >> their feature flags is super confusing. I've long wanted to implement >> common configuration management, but have not had time. > > I have a patch trying to solve this issue for CMake based ports[1], the patch > still on going, but even a change affecting just 2-3 ports using the same > build > system is a bit hard to get a consensus, so you can imagine how hard will be > to get a consensus over all WebKit ports. > > [1] https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103162 >
This is slightly off-topic, but I had thought that no one was actually using CMake; maybe I was mistaken and just none of the ports that build on webkit.org are? It looks like Blackberry and maybe a WinCE port uses CMake? Anyone else? -- Dirk _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev