Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC libdrm 0/2] Replace the build system with meson

From: Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Gray <jsg@jsg.id.au>
Cc: ML mesa-dev <mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com>,
	ML dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC libdrm 0/2] Replace the build system with meson
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 09:11:04 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEdQ38Eq65OWHhSaBi4XFePM5t2FgS9fZwX+Lda=4AXdxapHBw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170321051017.GI651@largo.jsg.id.au>

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Jonathan Gray <jsg@jsg.id.au> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:30:25AM -0700, Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 6:55 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Seems like we ended up all over the place, so let me try afresh.
>> >
>> > Above all:
>> >  - Saying "I don't care" about your users is arrogant - let us _not_
>> > do that, please ?
>>
>> Let's be honest, the OpenBSD is subjecting itself to some pretty
>> arbitrary restrictions caused including Mesa in its core: 10+ year old
>> GCC, non-GNU Make, and now no Meson. I don't believe either FreeBSD or
>> NetBSD keep Mesa as part of the core operating system, and as such
>> don't suffer from these problems.
>>
>> For better or worse, they have made their choices and they get to live
>> with them. We are not beholden to them.
>
> This isn't a situation like OpenSSH where people explicitly go out of
> their way to provide support for and test multiple systems and add
> support for horrible things like PAM.  It is more along the lines of
> considering integrating patches sent by others to make code build.

I think we (and you) have been able to deal with compiler problems
reasonably well. I don't have a particular problem taking patches for
things like that. GCC is just an example of the problem.

My core point is that OpenBSD has made choices to build Mesa with
tools and versions no one else uses. If we want to add a new build
dependency not in OpenBSD's core, I don't think it's fair for
OpenBSD's choices prevent us from moving forward.

>> > Even Linux distribution maintainers have responded that "upstream does
>> > not care us", which is indicative that we should be more careful what
>> > we say.
>>
>> Citation needed.
>>
>> > For the rest - we're dealing with two orthogonal issues here:
>> >
>> > * Multiple build systems
>> > I believe we'll all agree that I might be the person who's been in all
>> > the build systems the most.
>> > Yes I _would_ _love_ to drop it all but we simply _cannot_ do that yet:
>>
>> No one is advocating dropping all of the existing build systems yet.
>>
>> This patch is an RFC for a smaller project to start the discussion about Mesa.
>>
>> >  - [currently] there is no viable solution for Android
>>
>> Acknowledged. Dylan is going to see if this is something that can be
>> solved in upstream Meson.
>>
>> >  - dropping the Autotools will lead to OpenBSD and NetBSD having to
>> > write one from scratch, IIRC Solaris/FreeBSD and others are in similar
>> > boat.
>>
>> Solaris is a closed source operating system whose developers do not
>> contribute to the project. We do not need to base our decisions on
>> them.
>
> So Mesa will remove support for libglvnd then?  I don't see a lot of
> open source non-Mesa alternatives for libGL.

Huh? libglvnd is free software.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel