On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 4:23 AM Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 6:40 PM Igor Gnatenko
<ignatenkobrain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> meson 0.47.0 has new option type - feature (tri-state option - enabled/disabled/auto). It is quite common that in autofoo and less in cmake worlds people rely on auto-detection of dependencies and enabling features based on those.
>
> I believe that for distribution we should make sure that all default features are enabled and if not, packager should explicitly disable feature. For instance when I was testing some RPM patches for new compression types, it was disabling some default feature because the configure script was written in a wrong way.
>
> It would be nice if we could have some standardized way of specifying options for buildsystems which would convert into autofoo/cmake/meson way of specifying parameters but this is topic for another discussion.
>
> Thoughts? Objections?
My biggest objection here is that it blindly enables things, which
continues to make our package set a web of inter-dependencies and
makes any attempts at minimization harder. I don't think we should
default to building everything in here. I understand autotools might
do that, but I wouldn't necessarily call autotools a best practice to
begin with...
It is opposite, autofoo has everything "automatic" by default, so if you miss some dependency in buildroot (or a wrong version, or wrong check) - it will silently disable this feature. And no one will notice, except for the users.
There is no impact on any minimization work: if packager decides that we should disable some feature, he just passes -Dfeature=disabled and removes necessary buildrequires or whatsoever.
So the main difference which this option makes is: if some of checks fail for default option it is not silently disabled, but it will raise error.
> Unless there is strong opposition, I'm going to switch this parameter in %meson macro and you would be able to change its value by redefining %__meson_auto_features.
Can we discuss this more? I would really like to see Fedora become a
bit more explicit about things overall.
josh
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/BQ7VEPCIUXTFI4SE7IW5BS2637RXILNH/
-Igor Gnatenko
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/CLV5WOCRATWI6VWOETISRMXXVFIQBOIE/
