On Monday, October 17, 2016 8:55:27 PM CEST Igor Gnatenko wrote:
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Ralf Corsepius
<rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
> On 10/17/2016 04:37 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> during last FPC meeting we agreed[0]
>
> Well, it was not agreed. Actually, I quit the meeting in protest against
> your plan and your lack of understanding.
>
>> that we need some standardization
>> of macro related to builds where builddir != srcdir (and with
>> possibility to make it builddir = srcdir).
>
> For decades, this is has been called VPATH-builds in make terms.
>
>> I was working to make guidelines for ninja and meson. For ninja it
>> doesn't matter from where you build (it's like make), but meson itself
>> accepts ONLY out-of-tree builds. Would be nice to get system-wide
>> (rpm-wide?) macro which stands for:
>> 1) source directory where CMakeLists.txt/meson.build/configure are
>> 2) build directory (I think _target_platform is a good candidate)
>>
>> to make out-of-tree conversion to in-tree, you do the RPM variable
>> override.
>
> I don't see any need to do so nor has there been any demand for such beasts
> ever since rpm exists.
>
> $(PWD), pushd/popd, sub-shelling are common means to avoid these.
>
>> For example, in openSUSE it's defined in cmake[1] as __builddir and
>> __srcdir.
>
> Yes, SUSE always has a long history in cluttering their specs with useless
> macros and questionable features.
>
>> Ideas, suggestions are appreciated!
>
> IMO, just drop this idea. It's featuritis.
>
> Pavel
Problem is that with meson everyone will need to put this boilerplate
stuff in *each* spec.
Is this strictly %meson related? Could the generalizing be done in
`redhat-rpm-macros` within %meson_ namespace so we can avoid touching all
packages?
Though I'm not aware of the actual PoC, neither what boilerplate typing
needs to be done for every %meson package, probably worth sharing ...
Pavel