From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:21:47 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 0/3] Add support for Meson build In-Reply-To: <8186cfc2-f587-8d35-2560-2f2f314a186d@mind.be> References: <20170727094528.10745-1-joerg.krause@embedded.rocks> <866e116f-f9be-f138-4055-8ffe94ad2d19@imgtec.com> <1501150411.21202.1.camel@embedded.rocks> <20170727165026.4a5f59a1@windsurf.lan> <20171007135843.5a75c7f5@windsurf.home> <7d11c269-d453-6066-e6f1-2f68dd4b81d3@smile.fr> <8186cfc2-f587-8d35-2560-2f2f314a186d@mind.be> Message-ID: <20171011232147.4206a377@windsurf.lan> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 22:38:39 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > Yes, our original idea was that there should be a few packages using meson > before we add an infra for it. But since there are quite a few packages that > will use the meson infra, and since it seems pretty straightforward, it can > indeed be done right away (at least according to me, Thomas may have a different > opinion). Yes, I believe it's fine to have a Meson package infrastructure right away. There is a clear trend towards using Meson, so I'm fine with merging a package infrastructure for it. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com