[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Meson build definition
From: |
Akim Demaille |
Subject: |
Re: Meson build definition |
Date: |
Sun, 20 Dec 2020 08:09:59 +0100 |
Hi Daniele,
> Le 19 déc. 2020 à 20:17, Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@grinta.net> a écrit :
>
> Hello,
>
> I am working on a project that uses Bison to generate a parser and Meson
> as build system. I would like to include Bison as a subproject [1] in
> particular to make it easier for folks to hack on the project on OSes
> where managing dependencies is not easy (ie Windows).
I believe chocolatey addresses that issue. And people who want to hack
Bison should certainly be able to use their Unix subsystem.
> For this, I would
> need to have a Meson build definition for Bison too.
>
> Has anyone worked on building Bison with Meson?
I'm not aware of anything about that. There were efforts for cmake,
but if it was completed, I have never been told.
> If not, I may enough
> motivation to try to find the time to port the autotools based build
> system to Meson.
You are going to have a hard time with that. Bison depends on gnulib,
which itself comes with a large suite of Autoconf tests, and is evolving
quite fast.
But I guess you don't aim at addressing all the portability issues
that gnulib fixes, so you certainly can make a build for a modern platform
with much less efforts.
> Would a Meson based build system something that could be included
> upstream? That would make it less likely to bitrot in the near future.
Hosting it is OK, but I will personally spend no time on maintaining
it. In the past, we hosted the build system for djgpp, so we can host
more.
> Despite many projects moving to Meson, unfortunately, I don't think that
> it yet supports as many niche systems as autotools, thus it may not yet
> be desirable for Bison to move away from autotools
Anyway, this is very unlikely to happen. Bison belongs to an ecosystem
where the Autotools are the standard.
Cheers!