On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 10:25 AM Andrea Bolognani <abologna@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-09-09 at 16:09 +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 03:56:08PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > > Taking a step back, > > > what are the reasons one might want to call either meson or ninja to > > > run the test suite? > > > > It might be more natural for users to run `ninja && ninja test` but > > since meson 0.54.0 it is possible to run `meson compile && meson test`. > > > > So the technically the only reason to use `meson test` instead of > > `ninja test` is to use all the options of meson test. > > It looks like you can even do 'meson install', so basically you can > do everything without ever invoking ninja directly. > > Interestingly, the %meson RPMs macros, at least in the form they > currently exist in Fedora, seem to only use meson instead of ninja > for running tests in addition to the setup phase, where of course > using ninja is not an option. I wonder if, over time, that will > change... > The Meson macros are maintained as part of Meson itself upstream, and it was changed to use Meson directly with Meson 0.55.0: https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/commit/0a61f511aa1960ac0d3f9b5e50e35f5f603b99b7 This change was inspired by the change done in Fedora for CMake: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cmake/c/4e79ea67732aecb6232c33dfff6ab033842cf840 It is incredibly unlikely for Meson to switch back, because this abstraction makes it possible to trivially switch out backends without changing the interface. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
