Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
Since then we've adopted cmake. As with anything, it has its pros and cons, for us the primary pro was that almost all neighboring projects are using cmake. And no, we will not reconsider switching build systems again anytime soon :laughing: -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#issuecomment-1519415913 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
> It would be very nice to have a meson reimplementation in C too, as meson is > careful to ensure the language definition isn't tied to python. There is > apparently some project out there which tried to take a stab at this... > reportedly... but the meson developer didn't remember anything more than that > when I asked. These days, this is in our FAQ: https://mesonbuild.com/FAQ.html#but-i-really-want-a-version-of-meson-that-doesnt-use-python boson is what I was thinking of, but its energy petered out before getting production-ready -- possibly because it got used as the basis of muon, which eventually extensively rewrote everything it inherited from boson. Two years later, and muon is in a pretty solid place. Version 0.2.0 is out now, it is packaged in a couple of distros, and implements more or less everything you need to handle C/C++ projects. It's still missing support for most of meson's modules system, but I doubt you need cuda, qt, icestorm, etc. support... I successfully built this PR with muon after adding a single tiny patch to make the po/ directory optional, since muon doesn't yet implement the i18n module. Perhaps someone would like to implement that in muon, it should suffice to add .po -> .mo support without maintainer targets... You can get muon here: https://sr.ht/~lattis/muon/ muon dependencies for bootstrap: - sh - cc (with c99 support) optional: - pkgconf (for dependency support) - libcurl (for subproject wrap support) - libarchive (for subproject wrap support) stage2 bootstrap + runtime dependencies: - samurai, to actually build stuff :D You definitely want pkgconf, but the bootstrap chain here is really quite excellent and no python is involved anywhere. :) @pmatilai, is this worth reconsidering? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#issuecomment-1518929648 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
Closed #1209. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#event-3397804242___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
Lest anybody think this is still open for debate, I'm closing this now. The landscape is slowly, slowly changing of course and at the time we're about to become the last autotools dinosaur on the boostrap field then we can look at the situation again. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#issuecomment-637561164___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
CMake is not required to bootstrap _openSUSE_. It is required for all other ones using a libsolv-based package manager. RHEL/Fedora, OpenMandriva, Photon, etc. require the package manager in the bootstrap cycle, so libsolv is part of the bootstrap, which means CMake is already there. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#issuecomment-637533869___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
> That said, if people _really_ think Python is a problem, I'm all in favor of > CMake here. The rest of the package manager stack maintained in this > organization uses it. Heck, openSUSE's Zypper uses it! Weak argument: libzypp/zypper are not needed to bootstrap a distro (but we already have to build cmake twice anway to get out of a cycle due to cmake linking libcurl - but cmake further requries libuv and rhash) if I could choose, I'd prefer meson of cmake -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#issuecomment-637522500___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
Note that "meson in util-linux" is an experimental project for now and if it will be merged upstream then we will not drop autotools at the same time. We definitely need extra time for distros to adopt. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#issuecomment-626558201___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
In general, I consider Python to be not as problematic of a base dependency as the dependencies for autotools, which are the following: * bash * m4 * perl (!!!) * help2man * make * texinfo (!!!) Now of course, most of this is hidden from you because autotools output is stored in source tarballs released by projects (including rpm). In _that_ scenario, you just need POSIX shell, make, and libtool. That said, if people _really_ think Python is a problem, I'm all in favor of CMake here. The rest of the package manager stack maintained in this organization uses it. Heck, openSUSE's Zypper uses it! Debian's apt uses it too (they switched from their crazy half autotools half plain make system to CMake ~3 years ago). The ergonomics of CMake are well-known at this point (thanks to KDE and friends) and it's relatively trivial to bootstrap for builds. The portability of CMake is so much better than Autotools as well. CMake is also highly well supported in IDEs and text editors on all major platforms and several minor ones. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#issuecomment-626266937___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
> > * ninja > > Easy-peasy, C++. [samurai](https://github.com/michaelforney/samurai) is c99, even easier, and doesn't rely on re2c at all. It builds with a Makefile (although I understand that since python is already included, building ninja with configure.py isn't a huge dealbreaker). It would be very nice to have a meson reimplementation in C too, as meson is careful to ensure the language definition isn't tied to python. There is apparently some project out there which tried to take a stab at this... reportedly... but the meson developer didn't remember anything more than that when I asked. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#issuecomment-626025487___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
> @DimStar77 , > > > Just to chime in here as well: openSUSE has the 'distro bootstrap' split > > and tries to keep it under control. It's right that python3 is already in > > that chain (we build python3 is a minimal set with as few deps as possible, > > and an enhanced set, in two runs) > > I am curious, what depends on it apart from glibc (I guess)? so far, glibc is the only python3(base) consumer (and I was not happy when the started - but our arguments were dismissed by the glibc maintainers back then too) > > meson > > If you have Python, no other deps. Yep.. that does not sound scary (as long as one does not care for meson's test suite!) > > ninja > > Easy-peasy, C++. 'almost is everything turns out to be easy' - yet, one also wants to keep it small to get a bootstrap cycle. > > re2c > > Technically this is optional since ninja ships pre-generated sources. Definitively not what we aim for. vendored-in sources is the wrong solution to any problem. For the same reason as most distros stopped linking everything statically. Preferably, the goal is to eliminate something out of the ring for something else coming in. That would be the optimal case. The more there is in the bootstrap cycle, the worse it gets on ABI changs if you take care of a distro that's is self-contained -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#issuecomment-625912336___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
@DimStar77 , > Just to chime in here as well: openSUSE has the 'distro bootstrap' split and > tries to keep it under control. It's right that python3 is already in that > chain (we build python3 is a minimal set with as few deps as possible, and an > enhanced set, in two runs) I am curious, what depends on it apart from glibc (I guess)? > meson If you have Python, no other deps. > ninja Easy-peasy, C++. > re2c Technically this is optional since ninja ships pre-generated sources. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#issuecomment-625898177___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
Just to chime in here as well: openSUSE has the 'distro bootstrap' split and tries to keep it under control. It's right that python3 is already in that chain (we build python3 is a minimal set with as few deps as possible, and an enhanced set, in two runs) I made a quick check as to what that would mean for our setip if rpm were to switch to meson. We'd need: * meson (obvious) * ninja * rec2c as new packages in ring0 (which currently consistes of 119 packages) -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#issuecomment-625859974___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
> Besides the tests, and the fact that autotools is the devil I know and > prefer, rpm sits really early in the bootstrap chain, and adding significant > extra burden there is not acceptable. If glibc or gcc adopt some > non-autotools based build-system, I'm willing to reconsider. glibc already [needs Python 3 to build](https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=INSTALL;h=b7676d1c9f868e7b98bc4558349056d062182661 ), so it's almost there... I do also think that being able to bootstrap easily is a very important property though. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#issuecomment-625831438___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
@pmatilai Well this is really a downer... I was considering doing a CMake port for the rpm build scripts for similar reasons to @ignatenkobrain's to Meson. But if you're going to say that no work is going to be accepted ever, then that means my suffering for trying to bootstrap autotools on macOS every time I need to set up builds of rpm is not meaningful to you either. Between CMake or Meson, I would slightly prefer CMake, but both are orders of magnitude easier to deal with than Autotools on macOS. (As for @mlschroe's point about build cycles... Sorry, you're going to have to get over that pretty soon. util-linux is changing over, as are several other core projects.) -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#issuecomment-625797509___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
@pmatilai Well this is really a downer... I was considering doing a CMake port for the rpm build scripts for similar reasons to @ignatenkobrain's to Meson. But if you're going to say that _no_ work is going to be accepted ever, then that means my suffering for trying to bootstrap autotools on macOS every time I need to set up builds of rpm is not meaningful to you either. Between CMake or Meson, I would _slightly_ prefer Meson, but _both_ are orders of magnitude easier to deal with than Autotools on macOS. (As for @mlschroe's point about build cycles... Sorry, you're going to have to get over that pretty soon. util-linux is changing over, as are several other core projects.) -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#issuecomment-625797228___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
There's always busybox if util-linux goes crazy... Oh and @ignatenkobrain , this is nothing at all like support for a new signature type. Signatures are used / affect potentially millions of users out there, whereas there's only a handful of people in the world who actually need to build rpm from source tarballs, and even fewer people who need to actually need to build from git checkout and even fewer who actually need to modify the build system, which is the pain point of autoconf. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#issuecomment-625775582___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
(But I admit that this point is moot if util-linux really switches to meson. Systemd is currently not a problem, as it is not needed for building.) -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#issuecomment-625726930___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
No, Panu is right. Rpm being behind python *is* an issue for distribution builders because it introduces a nasty dependency cycle. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#issuecomment-625719009___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
> Wish I'd know this earlier :) Which is why I made a point of correcting it ASAP once I saw this effort to prevent any further wasted effort. I'm really sorry about that. My own recollection of the topic is simply that I've said "no" to suggestions of build system change that the point should be clear. But then I see I've left the door open contrary to my actual intentions :( -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#issuecomment-625718766___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
I think switching to a better build system is a worthwhile goal. Every switch to meson that I have seen has worked out well and was definitely worth the work. Apart from the speed and number-of-lines benefits that Igor listed, there are less tangible but important benefits that come from a better configuration language and more control over the configuration results. The logic expressed in meson can be much more elaborate when needed, because we have something that is a normal programming language, so build-this-if-that-and-that-but-not-the-other-thing becomes possible to express in a way that is understood by any contributor to the project, not just macro-m4-shell-automake wizards. And obviously, the relatively simple cases become much clearer too. All this lowers the bar for contribution. Meson also allows more precise interaction with the code. A simple but illustrative case is the ability to switch from `#ifdef HAVE_` to `#if HAVE_`. (Autotools uses `#define HAVE_FOO 1`/`#undef HAVE_FOO` in most cases, except for e.g. `#define HAVE_DECL_FOO 1`/`#define HAVE_DECL_FOO 0`, inconsistently and immutably. Meson allows `#define HAVE_FOO 1`/`#define HAVE_FOO 0`). This makes the `#if`-conditionals in code more consistent. `-Werror=undef` can be used to catch mistyped HAVE_ variables that often lurk for years without anyone noticing. Finally, meson+ninja do a better job at expressing and managing dependencies. Meson is able to capture dependencies between build steps much better than autotools, and in effect ninja is great at *partial* rebuilds. So partial rebuilds that only depend on a single file become nearly instantaneous and operations like "change build flag and rebuild anything *using* that build flag" work. With autotools, in many cases a full rebuild-from-scratch operation would be necessary. > rpm sits really early in the bootstrap chain When *installing* a new system, having rpm depend on python would be an issue. But when bootstrapping in the sense of building from scratch, I don't think this is a significant issue. Python is generally available on all platforms, and a non-rpm-packaged or non-native-rpm-installed-version could be used to build rpm. After rpm has been built, it wouldn't care about Python any more. So requiring Python at some point in the bootstrap cycle seems totally OK. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#issuecomment-625711545___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
> Oh, I see I said "patches might be considered" in #887, which is wrong and > I'll need to correct that in the ticket too. Wish I'd know this earlier :) -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#issuecomment-625710990___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
> Rpm is a low-level tool needed early in bootstrapping of a distro, and > Python as a pre-requisite for building rpm is not acceptable. Why so? Why do you need to start with RPM? In order to get something what you could call a system, you'd need to compile util-linux (to create filesystems, run `su` and such, and after all, use `kill` command which is used in rpmbuild), and that will require meson very soon. If you are bootstrapping new system (which you most likely don't), you'll already have these tools available in your environment so you will simply cross-compile the whole thing. Probably would be helpful to describe how you imagine bootstrapping new systems and how often people actually do so? Can you put more description about "bootstrapping issues"? > Besides the tests, and the fact that autotools is the devil I know and > prefer, rpm sits really early in the bootstrap chain, and adding significant > extra burden there is not acceptable. If glibc or gcc adopt some > non-autotools based build-system, I'm willing to reconsider. I know and very much appreciate that you are basically the one writing most of the code in RPM, but does it mean that it should stay like this? I mean that it would be same as if you have said "I'm not going to accept patch which implements support for ed25519 signatures because I prefer rsa". The other thing is the test suite - it is slow, horrible and only few people can basically write those. I am pretty sure you wish to get more tests, but it is not happening also because autotest is just :hankey: . At least I personally wanted to cover dependencies and signatures stuff with tests, but just gave up. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#issuecomment-625710802___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
Oh, I see I said "patches might be considered" in #887, which is wrong and I'll need to correct that in the ticket too. Besides the tests, and the fact that autotools is the devil I know and prefer, rpm sits really early in the bootstrap chain, and adding significant extra burden there is not acceptable. If glibc or gcc adopt some non-autotools based build-system, I'm willing to reconsider. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#issuecomment-625702675___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
Igor, don't waste your time. Our ours. Please. We're not going to change. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#issuecomment-625699184___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
@mlschroe well, don't worry - I will convert all the test :) -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#issuecomment-625697384___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
See also issue #887. The hard part is not the build process, but converting all the tests. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#issuecomment-625694952___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
@ignatenkobrain pushed 1 commit. 45c863b2f064df76bc4a23185be76c0c239a2eef Add meson buildsystem -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209/files/85df61d8e2fcc174b4b9dbeed2f513ce884a25fc..45c863b2f064df76bc4a23185be76c0c239a2eef ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
@ignatenkobrain pushed 1 commit. 85df61d8e2fcc174b4b9dbeed2f513ce884a25fc Add meson buildsystem -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209/files/78563442c2060aa3a265f16c12b875e015604d61..85df61d8e2fcc174b4b9dbeed2f513ce884a25fc ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
I wish you'd asked before starting such a big work. Rpm is a low-level tool needed early in bootstrapping of a distro, and Python as a pre-requisite for building rpm is not acceptable. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209#issuecomment-625647095___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
@ignatenkobrain pushed 1 commit. 56082ae5a49d0eac581cac4c2f49a08069a2fc63 Add meson buildsystem -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1209/files/b7f9f18c32600e32e3117139cdd61b2f90ff7269..56082ae5a49d0eac581cac4c2f49a08069a2fc63 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
