On Thu, 2020-03-26 at 08:55 +0100, Kjell Ahlstedt wrote: > On 2020-03-26 03:06, Pavlo Solntsev wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-03-25 at 18:49 +0100, Kjell Ahlstedt via gtkmm-list > > wrote: > > > These *mm packages can now be built either with Meson or with > > > Autotools: > > > > > > mm-common > > > libsigc++-2.0, libsigc++-3.0 > > > glibmm-2.4, glibmm-2.66 > > > pangomm-1.4, pangomm-2.44 > > > (gtkmm-documentation-3,) gtkmm-documentation-4 > > > I've put gtkmm-documentation-3 in parentheses because there is no > > > released tarball with Meson support, it's only in the git repo. > > > > How about ninja dist? > > https://mesonbuild.com/Creating-releases.html > > > > Yes, what about ninja dist? What do you mean? It should work with the > listed packages. Have you found that it doesn't? Or is your question > a way of saying that I should have used ninja dist instead of > make distcheck in recent releases? > What I am trying to say is that meson together with ninja allows tarball generation. I am not sure about the archive format. Also, for upstream API reference, we can make a wiki page at gitlab to see the resent successful comment. It can be done using CI. Any tarball from the successful commit can be added to the wiki page with possibility to download it. This is definitely a big picture. The first step would be to establish two build systems as a transition stage, then add CI, and start exploring other options as I described.
> Kjell _______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list gtkmm-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
