| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Provide both build systems in parallel for now, to ensure that we work
out all the differences between the two. Some time from now, we'll give
up on autotools.
Meson tends to be faster and probably easier to read/maintain. On my
machine, the full meson configure+build+install takes a little under
half as long as a similar autotools-based invocation.
Building with meson is a two step process. First, configure the build:
meson build
Then, compile the project:
ninja -C build
There's some mild differences in functionality between meson and
autotools. specifically:
1) No singular update-po target. meson only generates individual
update-po targets for each textdomain (of which we have 3). To make
this easier, there's a build-aux/update-po script which finds all
update-po targets and runs them.
2) No 'make dist' equivalent. Just run 'git archive' to generate a
suitable tarball for distribution.
|
|
Signed-off-by: Andrew Gregory <andrew.gregory.8@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>
|
|
We used to carry a patched version of ltmain in our repos to fix libtools
issues with -Wl,-as-needed. Now that ltmain is "generated" by autoreconf,
we manually patch it afterwards.
Signed-off-by: Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>
|
|
The latest automake release causes complaints about an out of date
'missing' file during configure. Sync with upstream.
Signed-off-by: Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Dave Reisner <dreisner@archlinux.org>
|
