Re: [PATCH 3/5] ninja: build modified version with GNU Make jobserver support

["Martin Hundebøll" <martin@geanix.com>]

Hi Randy,

On Mon, 2024-04-08 at 17:39 -0400, Randy MacLeod wrote:
>  On 2024-04-03 3:08 p.m., Martin Hundebøll wrote:
> > On Wed, 2024-04-03 at 17:58 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> > > We can't carry this mass of patches. It has to land upstream
> > > first.
> > > 
> > Understandable.
> > > 
> > > Are you able/willing to drive the upstream pull request to
> > > completion?
> > > 
> > No, I don't think so. I'm not familiar with the ninja codebase, and
> > the
> > pull requests has been lingering for too long.
> > 
> > Another option might be to propose adding the fifo feature to the
> > kitware fork of ninja:
> > https://github.com/Kitware/ninja
> > 
> > They have forked ninja to get the jobserver feature in, but haven't
> > taken the fifo part so far.
> > 
> > The kitware fork is also used by buildroot:
> > https://gitlab.com/buildroot.org/buildroot/-/blob/master/package/ninja/ninja.mk
> > 
> I see that v2 has switched to kitware, which is fine in the short
> run.
> 
>  I'm just back from vacation. I plan to test this patchset out.
> 
>  I can spend some time convincing upstream ninja that a solution is
> needed for our use-case and 
>  that perhaps the jobsever approach and the kitware fork is a good
> starting point. 
> 
>  Of course, I can't promise to "drive it to completion" but I'll
> hound the upstream devs for months or even years!
> 
> Thanks for re-submitting the patchset Martin!
>  

I got hit by a strike of motivation and submitted a new attempt on
jobserver support to ninja:
https://github.com/ninja-build/ninja/pull/2450

First review from the ninja maintainer seems positive. I'll resubmit
the my patchset to OE once the ninja PR is (hopefully) merged.

// Martin