Hi Ariel, On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 07:31:01PM -0300, Ariel D'Alessandro wrote: > Hi Mauro, Laurent, > > I can see this thread didn't follow up. > > Regarding Mauro's reasons about why not switching to meson, I totally > agree with this response from Laurent's. I don't see any of those > aspects being really an argument on why not supporting meson, but in any > case, discussion can follow up from there. > > On 3/20/21 5:01 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > Hi Mauro, > > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 08:32:09PM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > [snip] > >> > >> I'm not a lover of autoconf tools. Yet, replacing from it on this > >> project sounds a bad idea, for a couple of reasons. > >> > >> The main one is that nobody has yet provided any real reason about > >> *why* auto-tools should be replaced. > > IMHO, switching from autotools to meson has many advantages, like a > clear syntax, an active community and *faster* build speed than autotools. > > On a cold cache: > > $ time (meson setup build/ -Ddefault_library=both ; ninja -j4 -C build/) > real 0m15.945s ; user 0m51.235s ; sys 0m6.914s > > $ time (./configure ; make -j4) > real 0m45.985s ; user 1m57.454s ; sys 0m9.404s > > Although I haven't been involved in v4l-utils previously, I can see some > people interested on having meson build support, I'm not the only one > involved in this patchset. > > I understand that every change comes with a cost, but I believe meson's > been adopted for some time now, other projects have already done the > move, and the advantages overcome the possible negative aspects > mentioned. Again, this is just my humble opinion, and to me that's the > *why* porting to meson is a good idea :-) > > I'd like to hear for other reasons. Gregor, you've provided feedback on the implementation (thanks about that), but I don't think I've seen your opinion about the switch to meson itself. Have I missed it, and if I haven't, could you share your thoughts ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
