[PATCH libdrm] RELEASING: update instructions to use meson instead of autotools

[PATCH libdrm] RELEASING: update instructions to use meson instead of autotools

[Eric Engestrom]

Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@intel.com>
---
 RELEASING | 27 ++++++++-------------------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

diff --git a/RELEASING b/RELEASING
index 7e03e3b9acb1cbfb261a..d1ad8e3b4ad16d4ca14f 100644
--- a/RELEASING
+++ b/RELEASING
@@ -9,25 +9,14 @@ However, this is up to whoever is driving the feature in question.
 
 Follow these steps to release a new version of libdrm:
 
-  1) Bump the version number in configure.ac and meson.build. We seem
-     to have settled for 2.4.x as the versioning scheme for libdrm, so
-     just bump the  micro version.
-
-  2) Run autoconf and then re-run ./configure so the build system
-     picks up the new version number.
-
-  3) Verify that the code passes "make distcheck".  Running "make
-     distcheck" should result in no warnings or errors and end with a
-     message of the form:
-
-	=============================================
-	libdrm-X.Y.Z archives ready for distribution:
-	libdrm-X.Y.Z.tar.gz
-	libdrm-X.Y.Z.tar.bz2
-	=============================================
-
-     Make sure that the version number reported by distcheck and in
-     the tarball names matches the number you bumped to in configure.ac.
+  1) Bump the version number in meson.build. We seem to have settled for
+     2.4.x as the versioning scheme for libdrm, so just bump the micro
+     version.
+
+  2) Run `ninja -C builddir/ dist` to generate the tarballs.
+     Make sure that the version number of the tarball name in
+     builddir/meson-dist/ matches the number you bumped to. Move that
+     tarball to the libdrm repo root for the release script to pick up.
 
   4) Push the updated master branch with the bumped version number:
 
-- 
Cheers,
  Eric

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: [PATCH libdrm] RELEASING: update instructions to use meson instead of autotools

[Dylan Baker]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2078 bytes --]

Quoting Eric Engestrom (2018-12-19 08:23:40)
> Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@intel.com>
> ---
>  RELEASING | 27 ++++++++-------------------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/RELEASING b/RELEASING
> index 7e03e3b9acb1cbfb261a..d1ad8e3b4ad16d4ca14f 100644
> --- a/RELEASING
> +++ b/RELEASING
> @@ -9,25 +9,14 @@ However, this is up to whoever is driving the feature in question.
>  
>  Follow these steps to release a new version of libdrm:
>  
> -  1) Bump the version number in configure.ac and meson.build. We seem
> -     to have settled for 2.4.x as the versioning scheme for libdrm, so
> -     just bump the  micro version.
> -
> -  2) Run autoconf and then re-run ./configure so the build system
> -     picks up the new version number.
> -
> -  3) Verify that the code passes "make distcheck".  Running "make
> -     distcheck" should result in no warnings or errors and end with a
> -     message of the form:
> -
> -       =============================================
> -       libdrm-X.Y.Z archives ready for distribution:
> -       libdrm-X.Y.Z.tar.gz
> -       libdrm-X.Y.Z.tar.bz2
> -       =============================================
> -
> -     Make sure that the version number reported by distcheck and in
> -     the tarball names matches the number you bumped to in configure.ac.
> +  1) Bump the version number in meson.build. We seem to have settled for
> +     2.4.x as the versioning scheme for libdrm, so just bump the micro
> +     version.
> +
> +  2) Run `ninja -C builddir/ dist` to generate the tarballs.
> +     Make sure that the version number of the tarball name in
> +     builddir/meson-dist/ matches the number you bumped to. Move that
> +     tarball to the libdrm repo root for the release script to pick up.
>  
>    4) Push the updated master branch with the bumped version number:
>  
> -- 
> Cheers,
>   Eric
> 

Acked-by: Dylan Baker <dylan@pnwbakers.com>

But you should probably get someone other than just me to look at this.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYKAB0WIQRxxLdWILx1cItL2yVMlfqrPrBz7AUCXBvzJwAKCRBMlfqrPrBz
7PzFAQClsGsmlCfSlGeamOeOC2uCZSCjpzc9pXpMpfa/MXC+fgD/SUKwQtfWbjhX
g2QF92XYDjtrAk8xrmpx6e6WqiRx2Qg=
=BvKZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: [PATCH libdrm] RELEASING: update instructions to use meson instead of autotools

[Eric Engestrom]

On Thursday, 2018-12-20 11:53:11 -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
> Quoting Eric Engestrom (2018-12-19 08:23:40)
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  RELEASING | 27 ++++++++-------------------
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/RELEASING b/RELEASING
> > index 7e03e3b9acb1cbfb261a..d1ad8e3b4ad16d4ca14f 100644
> > --- a/RELEASING
> > +++ b/RELEASING
> > @@ -9,25 +9,14 @@ However, this is up to whoever is driving the feature in question.
> >  
> >  Follow these steps to release a new version of libdrm:
> >  
> > -  1) Bump the version number in configure.ac and meson.build. We seem
> > -     to have settled for 2.4.x as the versioning scheme for libdrm, so
> > -     just bump the  micro version.
> > -
> > -  2) Run autoconf and then re-run ./configure so the build system
> > -     picks up the new version number.
> > -
> > -  3) Verify that the code passes "make distcheck".  Running "make
> > -     distcheck" should result in no warnings or errors and end with a
> > -     message of the form:
> > -
> > -       =============================================
> > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z archives ready for distribution:
> > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z.tar.gz
> > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z.tar.bz2
> > -       =============================================
> > -
> > -     Make sure that the version number reported by distcheck and in
> > -     the tarball names matches the number you bumped to in configure.ac.
> > +  1) Bump the version number in meson.build. We seem to have settled for
> > +     2.4.x as the versioning scheme for libdrm, so just bump the micro
> > +     version.
> > +
> > +  2) Run `ninja -C builddir/ dist` to generate the tarballs.
> > +     Make sure that the version number of the tarball name in
> > +     builddir/meson-dist/ matches the number you bumped to. Move that
> > +     tarball to the libdrm repo root for the release script to pick up.
> >  
> >    4) Push the updated master branch with the bumped version number:

Just noticed I forgot to decrement item 4 & 5 :]

> >  
> > -- 
> > Cheers,
> >   Eric
> > 
> 
> Acked-by: Dylan Baker <dylan@pnwbakers.com>
> 
> But you should probably get someone other than just me to look at this.

There is no "libdrm maintainer", which makes everyone a libdrm
maintainer :]

If nobody object, I'll push this in a few weeks (there's really no rush,
but I want to make that move at some point, we have no reason to stay
dependant on autotools now that we have better tools).
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: [PATCH libdrm] RELEASING: update instructions to use meson instead of autotools

[Daniel Vetter]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 05:42:38PM +0000, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> On Thursday, 2018-12-20 11:53:11 -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > Quoting Eric Engestrom (2018-12-19 08:23:40)
> > > Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  RELEASING | 27 ++++++++-------------------
> > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/RELEASING b/RELEASING
> > > index 7e03e3b9acb1cbfb261a..d1ad8e3b4ad16d4ca14f 100644
> > > --- a/RELEASING
> > > +++ b/RELEASING
> > > @@ -9,25 +9,14 @@ However, this is up to whoever is driving the feature in question.
> > >  
> > >  Follow these steps to release a new version of libdrm:
> > >  
> > > -  1) Bump the version number in configure.ac and meson.build. We seem
> > > -     to have settled for 2.4.x as the versioning scheme for libdrm, so
> > > -     just bump the  micro version.
> > > -
> > > -  2) Run autoconf and then re-run ./configure so the build system
> > > -     picks up the new version number.
> > > -
> > > -  3) Verify that the code passes "make distcheck".  Running "make
> > > -     distcheck" should result in no warnings or errors and end with a
> > > -     message of the form:
> > > -
> > > -       =============================================
> > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z archives ready for distribution:
> > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z.tar.gz
> > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z.tar.bz2
> > > -       =============================================
> > > -
> > > -     Make sure that the version number reported by distcheck and in
> > > -     the tarball names matches the number you bumped to in configure.ac.
> > > +  1) Bump the version number in meson.build. We seem to have settled for
> > > +     2.4.x as the versioning scheme for libdrm, so just bump the micro
> > > +     version.
> > > +
> > > +  2) Run `ninja -C builddir/ dist` to generate the tarballs.
> > > +     Make sure that the version number of the tarball name in
> > > +     builddir/meson-dist/ matches the number you bumped to. Move that
> > > +     tarball to the libdrm repo root for the release script to pick up.
> > >  
> > >    4) Push the updated master branch with the bumped version number:
> 
> Just noticed I forgot to decrement item 4 & 5 :]
> 
> > >  
> > > -- 
> > > Cheers,
> > >   Eric
> > > 
> > 
> > Acked-by: Dylan Baker <dylan@pnwbakers.com>
> > 
> > But you should probably get someone other than just me to look at this.
> 
> There is no "libdrm maintainer", which makes everyone a libdrm
> maintainer :]
> 
> If nobody object, I'll push this in a few weeks (there's really no rush,
> but I want to make that move at some point, we have no reason to stay
> dependant on autotools now that we have better tools).

I double-checked that ninja dist does run the tests, so lgtm (with the
numbering adjusted):

Acked-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>

> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: [PATCH libdrm] RELEASING: update instructions to use meson instead of autotools

[Emil Velikov]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 17:42, Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 2018-12-20 11:53:11 -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > Quoting Eric Engestrom (2018-12-19 08:23:40)
> > > Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  RELEASING | 27 ++++++++-------------------
> > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/RELEASING b/RELEASING
> > > index 7e03e3b9acb1cbfb261a..d1ad8e3b4ad16d4ca14f 100644
> > > --- a/RELEASING
> > > +++ b/RELEASING
> > > @@ -9,25 +9,14 @@ However, this is up to whoever is driving the feature in question.
> > >
> > >  Follow these steps to release a new version of libdrm:
> > >
> > > -  1) Bump the version number in configure.ac and meson.build. We seem
> > > -     to have settled for 2.4.x as the versioning scheme for libdrm, so
> > > -     just bump the  micro version.
> > > -
> > > -  2) Run autoconf and then re-run ./configure so the build system
> > > -     picks up the new version number.
> > > -
> > > -  3) Verify that the code passes "make distcheck".  Running "make
> > > -     distcheck" should result in no warnings or errors and end with a
> > > -     message of the form:
> > > -
> > > -       =============================================
> > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z archives ready for distribution:
> > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z.tar.gz
> > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z.tar.bz2
> > > -       =============================================
> > > -
> > > -     Make sure that the version number reported by distcheck and in
> > > -     the tarball names matches the number you bumped to in configure.ac.
> > > +  1) Bump the version number in meson.build. We seem to have settled for
> > > +     2.4.x as the versioning scheme for libdrm, so just bump the micro
> > > +     version.
> > > +
> > > +  2) Run `ninja -C builddir/ dist` to generate the tarballs.
> > > +     Make sure that the version number of the tarball name in
> > > +     builddir/meson-dist/ matches the number you bumped to. Move that
> > > +     tarball to the libdrm repo root for the release script to pick up.
> > >
> > >    4) Push the updated master branch with the bumped version number:
>
> Just noticed I forgot to decrement item 4 & 5 :]
>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cheers,
> > >   Eric
> > >
> >
> > Acked-by: Dylan Baker <dylan@pnwbakers.com>
> >
> > But you should probably get someone other than just me to look at this.
>
> There is no "libdrm maintainer", which makes everyone a libdrm
> maintainer :]
>
> If nobody object, I'll push this in a few weeks (there's really no rush,
> but I want to make that move at some point, we have no reason to stay
> dependant on autotools now that we have better tools).

Must admit I'm not the biggest fan. I can see this being cool for the
maintainer, if autotools was was present on their system.
The unfortunate reality is - it's there for the foreseeable future.
If anything it makes it more annoying for those using autotools/make -
regardless if they like doing so or not.

So that's a nack from me :-\

-Emil
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: [PATCH libdrm] RELEASING: update instructions to use meson instead of autotools

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:57 PM Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 17:42, Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, 2018-12-20 11:53:11 -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > > Quoting Eric Engestrom (2018-12-19 08:23:40)
> > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  RELEASING | 27 ++++++++-------------------
> > > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/RELEASING b/RELEASING
> > > > index 7e03e3b9acb1cbfb261a..d1ad8e3b4ad16d4ca14f 100644
> > > > --- a/RELEASING
> > > > +++ b/RELEASING
> > > > @@ -9,25 +9,14 @@ However, this is up to whoever is driving the feature in question.
> > > >
> > > >  Follow these steps to release a new version of libdrm:
> > > >
> > > > -  1) Bump the version number in configure.ac and meson.build. We seem
> > > > -     to have settled for 2.4.x as the versioning scheme for libdrm, so
> > > > -     just bump the  micro version.
> > > > -
> > > > -  2) Run autoconf and then re-run ./configure so the build system
> > > > -     picks up the new version number.
> > > > -
> > > > -  3) Verify that the code passes "make distcheck".  Running "make
> > > > -     distcheck" should result in no warnings or errors and end with a
> > > > -     message of the form:
> > > > -
> > > > -       =============================================
> > > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z archives ready for distribution:
> > > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z.tar.gz
> > > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z.tar.bz2
> > > > -       =============================================
> > > > -
> > > > -     Make sure that the version number reported by distcheck and in
> > > > -     the tarball names matches the number you bumped to in configure.ac.
> > > > +  1) Bump the version number in meson.build. We seem to have settled for
> > > > +     2.4.x as the versioning scheme for libdrm, so just bump the micro
> > > > +     version.
> > > > +
> > > > +  2) Run `ninja -C builddir/ dist` to generate the tarballs.
> > > > +     Make sure that the version number of the tarball name in
> > > > +     builddir/meson-dist/ matches the number you bumped to. Move that
> > > > +     tarball to the libdrm repo root for the release script to pick up.
> > > >
> > > >    4) Push the updated master branch with the bumped version number:
> >
> > Just noticed I forgot to decrement item 4 & 5 :]
> >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >   Eric
> > > >
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Dylan Baker <dylan@pnwbakers.com>
> > >
> > > But you should probably get someone other than just me to look at this.
> >
> > There is no "libdrm maintainer", which makes everyone a libdrm
> > maintainer :]
> >
> > If nobody object, I'll push this in a few weeks (there's really no rush,
> > but I want to make that move at some point, we have no reason to stay
> > dependant on autotools now that we have better tools).
>
> Must admit I'm not the biggest fan. I can see this being cool for the
> maintainer, if autotools was was present on their system.
> The unfortunate reality is - it's there for the foreseeable future.
> If anything it makes it more annoying for those using autotools/make -
> regardless if they like doing so or not.
>
> So that's a nack from me :-\

Not really following what's the downside is of using meson to cut the
release tarball? Resulting tarball should still be able to build fine
with automake. If the concern is that automake will bitrot, then I
think a much better solution is to add a few automake targets to the
gitlab ci autobuilder stuff. That's what we've done for igt at least,
works neatly.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: [PATCH libdrm] RELEASING: update instructions to use meson instead of autotools

[Eric Engestrom]

On Tuesday, 2019-02-19 13:53:25 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:57 PM Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 17:42, Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, 2018-12-20 11:53:11 -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > > > Quoting Eric Engestrom (2018-12-19 08:23:40)
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  RELEASING | 27 ++++++++-------------------
> > > > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/RELEASING b/RELEASING
> > > > > index 7e03e3b9acb1cbfb261a..d1ad8e3b4ad16d4ca14f 100644
> > > > > --- a/RELEASING
> > > > > +++ b/RELEASING
> > > > > @@ -9,25 +9,14 @@ However, this is up to whoever is driving the feature in question.
> > > > >
> > > > >  Follow these steps to release a new version of libdrm:
> > > > >
> > > > > -  1) Bump the version number in configure.ac and meson.build. We seem
> > > > > -     to have settled for 2.4.x as the versioning scheme for libdrm, so
> > > > > -     just bump the  micro version.
> > > > > -
> > > > > -  2) Run autoconf and then re-run ./configure so the build system
> > > > > -     picks up the new version number.
> > > > > -
> > > > > -  3) Verify that the code passes "make distcheck".  Running "make
> > > > > -     distcheck" should result in no warnings or errors and end with a
> > > > > -     message of the form:
> > > > > -
> > > > > -       =============================================
> > > > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z archives ready for distribution:
> > > > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z.tar.gz
> > > > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z.tar.bz2
> > > > > -       =============================================
> > > > > -
> > > > > -     Make sure that the version number reported by distcheck and in
> > > > > -     the tarball names matches the number you bumped to in configure.ac.
> > > > > +  1) Bump the version number in meson.build. We seem to have settled for
> > > > > +     2.4.x as the versioning scheme for libdrm, so just bump the micro
> > > > > +     version.
> > > > > +
> > > > > +  2) Run `ninja -C builddir/ dist` to generate the tarballs.
> > > > > +     Make sure that the version number of the tarball name in
> > > > > +     builddir/meson-dist/ matches the number you bumped to. Move that
> > > > > +     tarball to the libdrm repo root for the release script to pick up.
> > > > >
> > > > >    4) Push the updated master branch with the bumped version number:
> > >
> > > Just noticed I forgot to decrement item 4 & 5 :]
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > >   Eric
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: Dylan Baker <dylan@pnwbakers.com>
> > > >
> > > > But you should probably get someone other than just me to look at this.
> > >
> > > There is no "libdrm maintainer", which makes everyone a libdrm
> > > maintainer :]
> > >
> > > If nobody object, I'll push this in a few weeks (there's really no rush,
> > > but I want to make that move at some point, we have no reason to stay
> > > dependant on autotools now that we have better tools).
> >
> > Must admit I'm not the biggest fan. I can see this being cool for the
> > maintainer, if autotools was was present on their system.
> > The unfortunate reality is - it's there for the foreseeable future.
> > If anything it makes it more annoying for those using autotools/make -
> > regardless if they like doing so or not.
> >
> > So that's a nack from me :-\
> 
> Not really following what's the downside is of using meson to cut the
> release tarball? Resulting tarball should still be able to build fine
> with automake. If the concern is that automake will bitrot, then I
> think a much better solution is to add a few automake targets to the
> gitlab ci autobuilder stuff. That's what we've done for igt at least,
> works neatly.

Agreed, and to me using meson has a huge upside: it packages what's in git,
unlike autotools which packages whatever was on your machine at the time.
This makes it much less likely to accidentally send files with local
modifications or add/remove files without meaning to.

Like I said though, there's no rush, so let's make sure issues are
addressed first.

I'll add a CI job to run `make distcheck` on releases (libdrm-* tags).

Emil, would that be enough, or was your concern something else?
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: [PATCH libdrm] RELEASING: update instructions to use meson instead of autotools

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 3:02 PM Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 2019-02-19 13:53:25 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:57 PM Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 17:42, Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@intel.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday, 2018-12-20 11:53:11 -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > > > > Quoting Eric Engestrom (2018-12-19 08:23:40)
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@intel.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  RELEASING | 27 ++++++++-------------------
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/RELEASING b/RELEASING
> > > > > > index 7e03e3b9acb1cbfb261a..d1ad8e3b4ad16d4ca14f 100644
> > > > > > --- a/RELEASING
> > > > > > +++ b/RELEASING
> > > > > > @@ -9,25 +9,14 @@ However, this is up to whoever is driving the feature in question.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  Follow these steps to release a new version of libdrm:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -  1) Bump the version number in configure.ac and meson.build. We seem
> > > > > > -     to have settled for 2.4.x as the versioning scheme for libdrm, so
> > > > > > -     just bump the  micro version.
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > -  2) Run autoconf and then re-run ./configure so the build system
> > > > > > -     picks up the new version number.
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > -  3) Verify that the code passes "make distcheck".  Running "make
> > > > > > -     distcheck" should result in no warnings or errors and end with a
> > > > > > -     message of the form:
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > -       =============================================
> > > > > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z archives ready for distribution:
> > > > > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z.tar.gz
> > > > > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z.tar.bz2
> > > > > > -       =============================================
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > -     Make sure that the version number reported by distcheck and in
> > > > > > -     the tarball names matches the number you bumped to in configure.ac.
> > > > > > +  1) Bump the version number in meson.build. We seem to have settled for
> > > > > > +     2.4.x as the versioning scheme for libdrm, so just bump the micro
> > > > > > +     version.
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +  2) Run `ninja -C builddir/ dist` to generate the tarballs.
> > > > > > +     Make sure that the version number of the tarball name in
> > > > > > +     builddir/meson-dist/ matches the number you bumped to. Move that
> > > > > > +     tarball to the libdrm repo root for the release script to pick up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >    4) Push the updated master branch with the bumped version number:
> > > >
> > > > Just noticed I forgot to decrement item 4 & 5 :]
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > >   Eric
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Acked-by: Dylan Baker <dylan@pnwbakers.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > But you should probably get someone other than just me to look at this.
> > > >
> > > > There is no "libdrm maintainer", which makes everyone a libdrm
> > > > maintainer :]
> > > >
> > > > If nobody object, I'll push this in a few weeks (there's really no rush,
> > > > but I want to make that move at some point, we have no reason to stay
> > > > dependant on autotools now that we have better tools).
> > >
> > > Must admit I'm not the biggest fan. I can see this being cool for the
> > > maintainer, if autotools was was present on their system.
> > > The unfortunate reality is - it's there for the foreseeable future.
> > > If anything it makes it more annoying for those using autotools/make -
> > > regardless if they like doing so or not.
> > >
> > > So that's a nack from me :-\
> >
> > Not really following what's the downside is of using meson to cut the
> > release tarball? Resulting tarball should still be able to build fine
> > with automake. If the concern is that automake will bitrot, then I
> > think a much better solution is to add a few automake targets to the
> > gitlab ci autobuilder stuff. That's what we've done for igt at least,
> > works neatly.
>
> Agreed, and to me using meson has a huge upside: it packages what's in git,
> unlike autotools which packages whatever was on your machine at the time.
> This makes it much less likely to accidentally send files with local
> modifications or add/remove files without meaning to.
>
> Like I said though, there's no rush, so let's make sure issues are
> addressed first.
>
> I'll add a CI job to run `make distcheck` on releases (libdrm-* tags).

I'd go with make check only. make distcheck needs all the manual
fiddling in makefile templates (EXTRA_DIST and friends) since automake
doesn't do the right thing by default like meson. If we go with meson
for making release tarballs, I don't think it makes sense to keep the
automake stuff alive.

But there's a bunch of compile-time tests in libdrm, run by ninja test
and make check, those should keep working imo, at least for now.
-Daniel

> Emil, would that be enough, or was your concern something else?



-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: [PATCH libdrm] RELEASING: update instructions to use meson instead of autotools

[Dylan Baker]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5716 bytes --]

Quoting Daniel Vetter (2019-02-19 07:20:12)
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 3:02 PM Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, 2019-02-19 13:53:25 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:57 PM Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 17:42, Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thursday, 2018-12-20 11:53:11 -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > > > > > Quoting Eric Engestrom (2018-12-19 08:23:40)
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@intel.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >  RELEASING | 27 ++++++++-------------------
> > > > > > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/RELEASING b/RELEASING
> > > > > > > index 7e03e3b9acb1cbfb261a..d1ad8e3b4ad16d4ca14f 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/RELEASING
> > > > > > > +++ b/RELEASING
> > > > > > > @@ -9,25 +9,14 @@ However, this is up to whoever is driving the feature in question.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  Follow these steps to release a new version of libdrm:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -  1) Bump the version number in configure.ac and meson.build. We seem
> > > > > > > -     to have settled for 2.4.x as the versioning scheme for libdrm, so
> > > > > > > -     just bump the  micro version.
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > -  2) Run autoconf and then re-run ./configure so the build system
> > > > > > > -     picks up the new version number.
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > -  3) Verify that the code passes "make distcheck".  Running "make
> > > > > > > -     distcheck" should result in no warnings or errors and end with a
> > > > > > > -     message of the form:
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > -       =============================================
> > > > > > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z archives ready for distribution:
> > > > > > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z.tar.gz
> > > > > > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z.tar.bz2
> > > > > > > -       =============================================
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > -     Make sure that the version number reported by distcheck and in
> > > > > > > -     the tarball names matches the number you bumped to in configure.ac.
> > > > > > > +  1) Bump the version number in meson.build. We seem to have settled for
> > > > > > > +     2.4.x as the versioning scheme for libdrm, so just bump the micro
> > > > > > > +     version.
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +  2) Run `ninja -C builddir/ dist` to generate the tarballs.
> > > > > > > +     Make sure that the version number of the tarball name in
> > > > > > > +     builddir/meson-dist/ matches the number you bumped to. Move that
> > > > > > > +     tarball to the libdrm repo root for the release script to pick up.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >    4) Push the updated master branch with the bumped version number:
> > > > >
> > > > > Just noticed I forgot to decrement item 4 & 5 :]
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > >   Eric
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Acked-by: Dylan Baker <dylan@pnwbakers.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But you should probably get someone other than just me to look at this.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no "libdrm maintainer", which makes everyone a libdrm
> > > > > maintainer :]
> > > > >
> > > > > If nobody object, I'll push this in a few weeks (there's really no rush,
> > > > > but I want to make that move at some point, we have no reason to stay
> > > > > dependant on autotools now that we have better tools).
> > > >
> > > > Must admit I'm not the biggest fan. I can see this being cool for the
> > > > maintainer, if autotools was was present on their system.
> > > > The unfortunate reality is - it's there for the foreseeable future.
> > > > If anything it makes it more annoying for those using autotools/make -
> > > > regardless if they like doing so or not.
> > > >
> > > > So that's a nack from me :-\
> > >
> > > Not really following what's the downside is of using meson to cut the
> > > release tarball? Resulting tarball should still be able to build fine
> > > with automake. If the concern is that automake will bitrot, then I
> > > think a much better solution is to add a few automake targets to the
> > > gitlab ci autobuilder stuff. That's what we've done for igt at least,
> > > works neatly.
> >
> > Agreed, and to me using meson has a huge upside: it packages what's in git,
> > unlike autotools which packages whatever was on your machine at the time.
> > This makes it much less likely to accidentally send files with local
> > modifications or add/remove files without meaning to.
> >
> > Like I said though, there's no rush, so let's make sure issues are
> > addressed first.
> >
> > I'll add a CI job to run `make distcheck` on releases (libdrm-* tags).
> 
> I'd go with make check only. make distcheck needs all the manual
> fiddling in makefile templates (EXTRA_DIST and friends) since automake
> doesn't do the right thing by default like meson. If we go with meson
> for making release tarballs, I don't think it makes sense to keep the
> automake stuff alive.

I agree with this. Getting a tarball with an autogen.sh and not a configure
script (i.e., unbootstrapped) is unexpected with autotools. When we move to
using meson to build the dist tarball we should drop autotools at the same time
or shortly after.

Just my two ¢.

Dylan

> 
> But there's a bunch of compile-time tests in libdrm, run by ninja test
> and make check, those should keep working imo, at least for now.
> -Daniel
> 
> > Emil, would that be enough, or was your concern something else?

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYKAB0WIQRxxLdWILx1cItL2yVMlfqrPrBz7AUCXGwh/wAKCRBMlfqrPrBz
7EFHAP0dMnnQQJGK0Zm1pBaOhblmx3WIcgyMHsGlrttBnjxGQgEA3SZoZ0TgLXu8
g2jnnMwkFXMr70HjYLa0ciJEuBZSSwY=
=Nh52
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 159 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: [PATCH libdrm] RELEASING: update instructions to use meson instead of autotools

[Emil Velikov]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 15:36, Dylan Baker <dylan@pnwbakers.com> wrote:
>
> Quoting Daniel Vetter (2019-02-19 07:20:12)
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 3:02 PM Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, 2019-02-19 13:53:25 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:57 PM Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 17:42, Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thursday, 2018-12-20 11:53:11 -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > > > > > > Quoting Eric Engestrom (2018-12-19 08:23:40)
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@intel.com>
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > >  RELEASING | 27 ++++++++-------------------
> > > > > > > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/RELEASING b/RELEASING
> > > > > > > > index 7e03e3b9acb1cbfb261a..d1ad8e3b4ad16d4ca14f 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/RELEASING
> > > > > > > > +++ b/RELEASING
> > > > > > > > @@ -9,25 +9,14 @@ However, this is up to whoever is driving the feature in question.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  Follow these steps to release a new version of libdrm:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -  1) Bump the version number in configure.ac and meson.build. We seem
> > > > > > > > -     to have settled for 2.4.x as the versioning scheme for libdrm, so
> > > > > > > > -     just bump the  micro version.
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > -  2) Run autoconf and then re-run ./configure so the build system
> > > > > > > > -     picks up the new version number.
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > -  3) Verify that the code passes "make distcheck".  Running "make
> > > > > > > > -     distcheck" should result in no warnings or errors and end with a
> > > > > > > > -     message of the form:
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > -       =============================================
> > > > > > > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z archives ready for distribution:
> > > > > > > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z.tar.gz
> > > > > > > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z.tar.bz2
> > > > > > > > -       =============================================
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > -     Make sure that the version number reported by distcheck and in
> > > > > > > > -     the tarball names matches the number you bumped to in configure.ac.
> > > > > > > > +  1) Bump the version number in meson.build. We seem to have settled for
> > > > > > > > +     2.4.x as the versioning scheme for libdrm, so just bump the micro
> > > > > > > > +     version.
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +  2) Run `ninja -C builddir/ dist` to generate the tarballs.
> > > > > > > > +     Make sure that the version number of the tarball name in
> > > > > > > > +     builddir/meson-dist/ matches the number you bumped to. Move that
> > > > > > > > +     tarball to the libdrm repo root for the release script to pick up.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >    4) Push the updated master branch with the bumped version number:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just noticed I forgot to decrement item 4 & 5 :]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > >   Eric
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Acked-by: Dylan Baker <dylan@pnwbakers.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But you should probably get someone other than just me to look at this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is no "libdrm maintainer", which makes everyone a libdrm
> > > > > > maintainer :]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If nobody object, I'll push this in a few weeks (there's really no rush,
> > > > > > but I want to make that move at some point, we have no reason to stay
> > > > > > dependant on autotools now that we have better tools).
> > > > >
> > > > > Must admit I'm not the biggest fan. I can see this being cool for the
> > > > > maintainer, if autotools was was present on their system.
> > > > > The unfortunate reality is - it's there for the foreseeable future.
> > > > > If anything it makes it more annoying for those using autotools/make -
> > > > > regardless if they like doing so or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > So that's a nack from me :-\
> > > >
> > > > Not really following what's the downside is of using meson to cut the
> > > > release tarball? Resulting tarball should still be able to build fine
> > > > with automake. If the concern is that automake will bitrot, then I
> > > > think a much better solution is to add a few automake targets to the
> > > > gitlab ci autobuilder stuff. That's what we've done for igt at least,
> > > > works neatly.
> > >
meson dist is effectively a git tarball. Hence one cannot simply
"./configure && make" it

> > > Agreed, and to me using meson has a huge upside: it packages what's in git,
> > > unlike autotools which packages whatever was on your machine at the time.
If meson doesn't use any of the extra files that is fine. I'm not
saying it should :-)

> > > This makes it much less likely to accidentally send files with local
> > > modifications or add/remove files without meaning to.
> > >
The release tooling handles that amongst other things.

> > > Like I said though, there's no rush, so let's make sure issues are
> > > addressed first.
> > >
> > > I'll add a CI job to run `make distcheck` on releases (libdrm-* tags).
> >
> > I'd go with make check only. make distcheck needs all the manual
> > fiddling in makefile templates (EXTRA_DIST and friends) since automake
> > doesn't do the right thing by default like meson. If we go with meson
> > for making release tarballs, I don't think it makes sense to keep the
> > automake stuff alive.
>
> I agree with this. Getting a tarball with an autogen.sh and not a configure
> script (i.e., unbootstrapped) is unexpected with autotools. When we move to
> using meson to build the dist tarball we should drop autotools at the same time
> or shortly after.
>
If it doesn't get in one's way what's the point of killing it?
Practically all the issues I've seen so far are people not running
make check/ninja test :-(

While I'm a fan of meson for the speed, there are no concerns from
having a more established alternative around.

-Emil
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: [PATCH libdrm] RELEASING: update instructions to use meson instead of autotools

[Dylan Baker]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7174 bytes --]

Quoting Emil Velikov (2019-02-19 08:51:18)
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 15:36, Dylan Baker <dylan@pnwbakers.com> wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Daniel Vetter (2019-02-19 07:20:12)
> > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 3:02 PM Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@intel.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, 2019-02-19 13:53:25 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:57 PM Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 17:42, Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thursday, 2018-12-20 11:53:11 -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > > > > > > > Quoting Eric Engestrom (2018-12-19 08:23:40)
> > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@intel.com>
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > >  RELEASING | 27 ++++++++-------------------
> > > > > > > > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > diff --git a/RELEASING b/RELEASING
> > > > > > > > > index 7e03e3b9acb1cbfb261a..d1ad8e3b4ad16d4ca14f 100644
> > > > > > > > > --- a/RELEASING
> > > > > > > > > +++ b/RELEASING
> > > > > > > > > @@ -9,25 +9,14 @@ However, this is up to whoever is driving the feature in question.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >  Follow these steps to release a new version of libdrm:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -  1) Bump the version number in configure.ac and meson.build. We seem
> > > > > > > > > -     to have settled for 2.4.x as the versioning scheme for libdrm, so
> > > > > > > > > -     just bump the  micro version.
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > -  2) Run autoconf and then re-run ./configure so the build system
> > > > > > > > > -     picks up the new version number.
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > -  3) Verify that the code passes "make distcheck".  Running "make
> > > > > > > > > -     distcheck" should result in no warnings or errors and end with a
> > > > > > > > > -     message of the form:
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > -       =============================================
> > > > > > > > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z archives ready for distribution:
> > > > > > > > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z.tar.gz
> > > > > > > > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z.tar.bz2
> > > > > > > > > -       =============================================
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > -     Make sure that the version number reported by distcheck and in
> > > > > > > > > -     the tarball names matches the number you bumped to in configure.ac.
> > > > > > > > > +  1) Bump the version number in meson.build. We seem to have settled for
> > > > > > > > > +     2.4.x as the versioning scheme for libdrm, so just bump the micro
> > > > > > > > > +     version.
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +  2) Run `ninja -C builddir/ dist` to generate the tarballs.
> > > > > > > > > +     Make sure that the version number of the tarball name in
> > > > > > > > > +     builddir/meson-dist/ matches the number you bumped to. Move that
> > > > > > > > > +     tarball to the libdrm repo root for the release script to pick up.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >    4) Push the updated master branch with the bumped version number:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just noticed I forgot to decrement item 4 & 5 :]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > >   Eric
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Acked-by: Dylan Baker <dylan@pnwbakers.com>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But you should probably get someone other than just me to look at this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is no "libdrm maintainer", which makes everyone a libdrm
> > > > > > > maintainer :]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If nobody object, I'll push this in a few weeks (there's really no rush,
> > > > > > > but I want to make that move at some point, we have no reason to stay
> > > > > > > dependant on autotools now that we have better tools).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Must admit I'm not the biggest fan. I can see this being cool for the
> > > > > > maintainer, if autotools was was present on their system.
> > > > > > The unfortunate reality is - it's there for the foreseeable future.
> > > > > > If anything it makes it more annoying for those using autotools/make -
> > > > > > regardless if they like doing so or not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So that's a nack from me :-\
> > > > >
> > > > > Not really following what's the downside is of using meson to cut the
> > > > > release tarball? Resulting tarball should still be able to build fine
> > > > > with automake. If the concern is that automake will bitrot, then I
> > > > > think a much better solution is to add a few automake targets to the
> > > > > gitlab ci autobuilder stuff. That's what we've done for igt at least,
> > > > > works neatly.
> > > >
> meson dist is effectively a git tarball. Hence one cannot simply
> "./configure && make" it
> 
> > > > Agreed, and to me using meson has a huge upside: it packages what's in git,
> > > > unlike autotools which packages whatever was on your machine at the time.
> If meson doesn't use any of the extra files that is fine. I'm not
> saying it should :-)
> 
> > > > This makes it much less likely to accidentally send files with local
> > > > modifications or add/remove files without meaning to.
> > > >
> The release tooling handles that amongst other things.
> 
> > > > Like I said though, there's no rush, so let's make sure issues are
> > > > addressed first.
> > > >
> > > > I'll add a CI job to run `make distcheck` on releases (libdrm-* tags).
> > >
> > > I'd go with make check only. make distcheck needs all the manual
> > > fiddling in makefile templates (EXTRA_DIST and friends) since automake
> > > doesn't do the right thing by default like meson. If we go with meson
> > > for making release tarballs, I don't think it makes sense to keep the
> > > automake stuff alive.
> >
> > I agree with this. Getting a tarball with an autogen.sh and not a configure
> > script (i.e., unbootstrapped) is unexpected with autotools. When we move to
> > using meson to build the dist tarball we should drop autotools at the same time
> > or shortly after.
> >
> If it doesn't get in one's way what's the point of killing it?
> Practically all the issues I've seen so far are people not running
> make check/ninja test :-(
> 
> While I'm a fan of meson for the speed, there are no concerns from
> having a more established alternative around.
> 
> -Emil

Personally I see two problems with keeping autotools:

1) We have to keep maintaining it. As more and more people use meson then
   autotools will bitrot (We've seen this in mesa already). Eventually the
   tribal knowledge will be "don't use autotools, it's broken", but people who
   aren't in the tribe wont know that and will be (rightfully) frustrated.

2) while autotools expects a bootstrapped tarbal (generated files) meson
   doesn't, and this can lead to cases where ninja should regenerate a source
   because something has changed, but doesn't.

Again, just my two ¢.

Dylan

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYKAB0WIQRxxLdWILx1cItL2yVMlfqrPrBz7AUCXGyEIAAKCRBMlfqrPrBz
7MbDAQCx2YyhzmvQHQt0EA9sI4caN9ktIpbFy6IskHGUSszqJgEAwHg6VZZQtOT8
XYv5ZXQpaJtt1eamEjeRTj/CfbiC7QI=
=IYNz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 159 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: [PATCH libdrm] RELEASING: update instructions to use meson instead of autotools

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 02:33:04PM -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
> Quoting Emil Velikov (2019-02-19 08:51:18)
> > On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 15:36, Dylan Baker <dylan@pnwbakers.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Quoting Daniel Vetter (2019-02-19 07:20:12)
> > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 3:02 PM Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tuesday, 2019-02-19 13:53:25 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:57 PM Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 17:42, Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, 2018-12-20 11:53:11 -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Quoting Eric Engestrom (2018-12-19 08:23:40)
> > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@intel.com>
> > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > >  RELEASING | 27 ++++++++-------------------
> > > > > > > > > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/RELEASING b/RELEASING
> > > > > > > > > > index 7e03e3b9acb1cbfb261a..d1ad8e3b4ad16d4ca14f 100644
> > > > > > > > > > --- a/RELEASING
> > > > > > > > > > +++ b/RELEASING
> > > > > > > > > > @@ -9,25 +9,14 @@ However, this is up to whoever is driving the feature in question.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >  Follow these steps to release a new version of libdrm:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -  1) Bump the version number in configure.ac and meson.build. We seem
> > > > > > > > > > -     to have settled for 2.4.x as the versioning scheme for libdrm, so
> > > > > > > > > > -     just bump the  micro version.
> > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > -  2) Run autoconf and then re-run ./configure so the build system
> > > > > > > > > > -     picks up the new version number.
> > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > -  3) Verify that the code passes "make distcheck".  Running "make
> > > > > > > > > > -     distcheck" should result in no warnings or errors and end with a
> > > > > > > > > > -     message of the form:
> > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > -       =============================================
> > > > > > > > > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z archives ready for distribution:
> > > > > > > > > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z.tar.gz
> > > > > > > > > > -       libdrm-X.Y.Z.tar.bz2
> > > > > > > > > > -       =============================================
> > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > -     Make sure that the version number reported by distcheck and in
> > > > > > > > > > -     the tarball names matches the number you bumped to in configure.ac.
> > > > > > > > > > +  1) Bump the version number in meson.build. We seem to have settled for
> > > > > > > > > > +     2.4.x as the versioning scheme for libdrm, so just bump the micro
> > > > > > > > > > +     version.
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > +  2) Run `ninja -C builddir/ dist` to generate the tarballs.
> > > > > > > > > > +     Make sure that the version number of the tarball name in
> > > > > > > > > > +     builddir/meson-dist/ matches the number you bumped to. Move that
> > > > > > > > > > +     tarball to the libdrm repo root for the release script to pick up.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >    4) Push the updated master branch with the bumped version number:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Just noticed I forgot to decrement item 4 & 5 :]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > >   Eric
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Dylan Baker <dylan@pnwbakers.com>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But you should probably get someone other than just me to look at this.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is no "libdrm maintainer", which makes everyone a libdrm
> > > > > > > > maintainer :]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If nobody object, I'll push this in a few weeks (there's really no rush,
> > > > > > > > but I want to make that move at some point, we have no reason to stay
> > > > > > > > dependant on autotools now that we have better tools).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Must admit I'm not the biggest fan. I can see this being cool for the
> > > > > > > maintainer, if autotools was was present on their system.
> > > > > > > The unfortunate reality is - it's there for the foreseeable future.
> > > > > > > If anything it makes it more annoying for those using autotools/make -
> > > > > > > regardless if they like doing so or not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So that's a nack from me :-\
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not really following what's the downside is of using meson to cut the
> > > > > > release tarball? Resulting tarball should still be able to build fine
> > > > > > with automake. If the concern is that automake will bitrot, then I
> > > > > > think a much better solution is to add a few automake targets to the
> > > > > > gitlab ci autobuilder stuff. That's what we've done for igt at least,
> > > > > > works neatly.
> > > > >
> > meson dist is effectively a git tarball. Hence one cannot simply
> > "./configure && make" it
> > 
> > > > > Agreed, and to me using meson has a huge upside: it packages what's in git,
> > > > > unlike autotools which packages whatever was on your machine at the time.
> > If meson doesn't use any of the extra files that is fine. I'm not
> > saying it should :-)
> > 
> > > > > This makes it much less likely to accidentally send files with local
> > > > > modifications or add/remove files without meaning to.
> > > > >
> > The release tooling handles that amongst other things.
> > 
> > > > > Like I said though, there's no rush, so let's make sure issues are
> > > > > addressed first.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll add a CI job to run `make distcheck` on releases (libdrm-* tags).
> > > >
> > > > I'd go with make check only. make distcheck needs all the manual
> > > > fiddling in makefile templates (EXTRA_DIST and friends) since automake
> > > > doesn't do the right thing by default like meson. If we go with meson
> > > > for making release tarballs, I don't think it makes sense to keep the
> > > > automake stuff alive.
> > >
> > > I agree with this. Getting a tarball with an autogen.sh and not a configure
> > > script (i.e., unbootstrapped) is unexpected with autotools. When we move to
> > > using meson to build the dist tarball we should drop autotools at the same time
> > > or shortly after.
> > >
> > If it doesn't get in one's way what's the point of killing it?
> > Practically all the issues I've seen so far are people not running
> > make check/ninja test :-(
> > 
> > While I'm a fan of meson for the speed, there are no concerns from
> > having a more established alternative around.
> > 
> > -Emil
> 
> Personally I see two problems with keeping autotools:
> 
> 1) We have to keep maintaining it. As more and more people use meson then
>    autotools will bitrot (We've seen this in mesa already). Eventually the
>    tribal knowledge will be "don't use autotools, it's broken", but people who
>    aren't in the tribe wont know that and will be (rightfully) frustrated.
> 
> 2) while autotools expects a bootstrapped tarbal (generated files) meson
>    doesn't, and this can lead to cases where ninja should regenerate a source
>    because something has changed, but doesn't.
> 
> Again, just my two ¢.

Yeah I don't think maintaining 2 build systems is a good idea long term.
At least for igt the plan is to sunset autoconf fairly aggressively, only
thing you can still build with autoconf are the tests/tools. Everything
around it (docs, manpages, selftests, ...) is already meson only. I think
once most of the projects requiring libdrm dumped autoconf, we should dump
it too from libdrm. And that seems well on its way already.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel