On 3/28/19 1:35 AM, James B via lfs-dev wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 13:45:56 +0800
Xi Ruoyao via lfs-dev <[email protected]> wrote:
Just my 2 cents.
Also, just my 0.01 yuan (about 1/7 cents :).
LOL. I certainly agree with you that autotools and cmake aren't without
problems. Autotools is definitely a nightmare to debug, and newer versions may
not even be backward compatible. I also agree that libtool is annoying - many
build breakage can be traced to it.
But the point is that meson isn't any better, it lacks maturity (again, newer
version isn't backward compatible either), lacks features ... so why change
from one broken tools to another; and why the rush to embrace it, breaking
builds left and right while doing so.
If it is not used, then we never find out the bugs. It is annoying
though. I will note that meson/ninja seem to be a lot faster than
configure/make.
And then Python (which meson depends on) isn't exactly straightforward to
bootstrap, and doubly so for multilib environments.
I don't seem to have any problems with Python.
Anyway. Here in LFS we don't get to make that decisions, we just have to live
with whatever upstream packages have decided.
That's true, but sometimes they allow the choice of autotools or meson.
Franky I prefer meson because is needs less overhead and is faster.
meson does work most of the time and is slowly getting better. The
latest version seems to be an abnormal situation.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
