If you're willing to give it a shot, then that sounds like a fine idea.
- Maciej
On Jul 15, 2009, at 10:51 PM, Ryan Leavengood wrote:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Maciej Stachowiak
wrote:
One belated comment on this topic. It would be neat if some port
agreed to
be the guinea pig to
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> One belated comment on this topic. It would be neat if some port agreed to
> be the guinea pig to see if gyp could plausibly work for more than Google's
> ports. The Wx port probably has the lowest resources of any complete port in
> the
Brent Fulgham wrote:
> The thing that worries me about this latest push to add GYP is that
> there was much Google enthusiasm for the SCons stuff six months or so
> ago, and SCons stuff started landing in the tree, and now that's all
> been tossed away (apparently for performance reasons).
>
> Do w
Hi Peter,
On Jul 14, 2009, at 10:27 AM, Peter Kasting wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Kevin Ollivier > wrote:
Of course, the big question is if waf would have the same
limitations as SCons in regards to doing this, but I think it's at
least worth exploring. I'd be interested to know
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Brent Fulgham wrote:
> Do we feel that GYP is finally the right tool?
>
Well, unlike SCons we're actually building all our ports on top of GYP. We
never actually expanded SCons to all platforms or addressed the problems we
had with it.
But I can't speak for et
Hi,
> Kevin Ollivier wrote:
>> I'd be interested to know what limitations you guys ran into when trying to
>> use SCons for this sort of thing.
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Mark Mentovai wrote:
> The SCons input language is too "free-form" to be easily shoehorned
> into things like Xcode
Kevin Ollivier wrote:
> I'd be interested to know what limitations you guys ran into when trying to
> use SCons for this sort of thing.
The SCons input language is too "free-form" to be easily shoehorned
into things like Xcode and Visual Studio projects.
SCons is flexible enough that mapping its
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Peter Kasting wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Kevin Ollivier
> wrote:
>
>> Of course, the big question is if waf would have the same limitations as
>> SCons in regards to doing this, but I think it's at least worth exploring.
>> I'd be interested to kn
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Kevin Ollivier wrote:
> Of course, the big question is if waf would have the same limitations as
> SCons in regards to doing this, but I think it's at least worth exploring.
> I'd be interested to know what limitations you guys ran into when trying to
> use SCons f
Hi Peter,
On Jul 13, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Maciej Stachowiak
wrote:
One belated comment on this topic. It would be neat if some port
agreed to be the guinea pig to see if gyp could plausibly work for
more than Google's ports. The Wx port p
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Another note, based on some #chromium conversations: if someone
passionate made CMake (or any other tool) into something compelling
enough to work better for Chromium than gyp does (or at least to work
close-to-as-well), and that tool was more plausible for other ports
On Jul 13, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Maciej Stachowiak
wrote:
One belated comment on this topic. It would be neat if some port
agreed to be the guinea pig to see if gyp could plausibly work for
more than Google's ports. The Wx port probably ha
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> One belated comment on this topic. It would be neat if some port agreed to
> be the guinea pig to see if gyp could plausibly work for more than Google's
> ports. The Wx port probably has the lowest resources of any complete port in
> the
ndows port)
- wx Bakefile (which will be replaced by waf soon)
- Qt Qmake
- GTK GNUMakefile
- Google's gyp (added recently)
Are any of the other ports going to switch to generating their build
files using gyp?
Dave
- Original Message ----
From: Kevin Ollivier
To: Dimitri Glazkov
Cc: Ma
Hi Jeremy,
On Jul 10, 2009, at 6:54 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Kevin Ollivier > wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
On Jul 10, 2009, at 3:03 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
[snip]
Your argument makes sense if WebKit is only built for one platform/
build-system. Unfortunately it's not.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Kevin Ollivier wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
> On Jul 10, 2009, at 3:03 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Your argument makes sense if WebKit is only built for one
> platform/build-system. Unfortunately it's not. So the question is whether
> it's easier to maintain lo
files using gyp?
Dave
- Original Message
From: Kevin Ollivier
To: Dimitri Glazkov
Cc: Mark Mentovai ; WebKit Development >
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 8:52:57 AM
Subject: [webkit-dev] Build File Maintenance (was Re: Please welcome
GYP to the our dysfunctional build family)
Hi Di
ns support was added and
>> removed within the last year):
>>
>> - Apple's Xcode
>> - Apple's vcproj (also used by at least one other Windows port)
>> - wx Bakefile (which will be replaced by waf soon)
>> - Qt Qmake
>> - GTK GNUMakefile
>&
TK GNUMakefile
- Google's gyp (added recently)
Are any of the other ports going to switch to generating their build
files using gyp?
Dave
- Original Message
From: Kevin Ollivier
To: Dimitri Glazkov
Cc: Mark Mentovai ; WebKit Development >
Sent: Friday, July 10,
Having used both Chromium's .gyp solution and WebKit's
. solution, I'd like to add a huge +1 to
anyone interested in doing this for their own port. Especially since the
lack of trybots for webkit means that it's prohibitively difficult for
people to actually test their build changes cross-platform
To add to this, GYP also only generates files for _your_ platform on
checkout. Even to the degree that on Windows, it would generate VS2008
projects if you had it installed, and VS2005 otherwise. To be precise,
the selection is not automatic (you need an env variable) to avoid
dual-VS installs ambi
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
>> If you hand-edit Xcode project files enough times you start to understand
>> them, but you also may go insane in the process. I don't know that you have
>> to write a full parser for it, but there is some non-trivial, minimal
>> structu
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 11:06 AM, David Kilzer wrote:
>
>> So, does anyone think this would be a bad idea, or have any
>> alternate suggestions on how to improve things?
>
>
> What about adding support for waf to gyp?
+1. I think GYP took the right step back from project files to a
meta-format fro
---
> From: Kevin Ollivier
> To: Dimitri Glazkov
> Cc: Mark Mentovai ; WebKit Development
>
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 8:52:57 AM
> Subject: [webkit-dev] Build File Maintenance (was Re: Please welcome GYP to
> the our dysfunctional build family)
>
> Hi Dimitri and
7;s gyp (added recently)
Are any of the other ports going to switch to generating their build files
using gyp?
Dave
- Original Message
> From: Kevin Ollivier
> To: Dimitri Glazkov
> Cc: Mark Mentovai ; WebKit Development
>
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 8:52:57 AM
&
Hi Dimitri and all,
Congrats on getting this into WebKit! Actually, I'm in the middle of a
build system switch as well - to waf, a re-write of scons that removed
many of the performance issues related to searching and calculating
dependencies, and which has added some nice features as well
26 matches
Mail list logo
