All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] Makefile: deprecate autoconf build infrastructure
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2026 08:51:23 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <abEe-87CJSm418ln@pks.im> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqq8qc78nyt.fsf@gitster.g>

On Wed, Mar 04, 2026 at 10:10:50AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
> 
> > roundabout 1.5 years ago we had a long discussion that eventually led to
> > a rough consensus that we'd rather want to get rid of our autoconf build
> > infrastucture. This eventually led to the introduction of Meson to cover
> > this use case, which has stabilized for quite a while by now.
> >
> > This patch series thus starts the deprecation period of the autoconf
> > build infrastructure. Target for removal is Git 2.55 for now, but I'm
> > very open for discussions here. I also assume that depending on feedback
> > from packagers we may need to adapt the timeline.
> 
> I do not consider autoconf a thing on its own; rather it is a mere
> extension to Makefile based build, isn't it?  So the declaration to
> say "we favor meson over autoconf" makes little sense, at least to
> me.

Yeah, that's why I mentioned 3.5 build systems. I don't consider it to
be a full build system itself, but rather the .5 part.

> Asking which between Makefile and Meson should be the "primary"
> build environment is a different story, and the question does make
> sense, even though my answer may be different from yours ;-)

My intent isn't really to push Meson instead of our Makefile, only Meson
instead of the autoconf infra. I would claim it's the least-loved part
of our build infra overall, and it's both hard to read and write. Our
recommendation typically is to use the Makefile directly, and from my
perception I think that past discussions seemed to be in favor of
getting rid of autoconf eventually. I think we're now in a good position
to do that, but you or others may of course disagree.

Patrick

      reply	other threads:[~2026-03-11  7:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-03-04  8:22 [PATCH RFC 0/2] Makefile: deprecate autoconf build infrastructure Patrick Steinhardt
2026-03-04  8:23 ` [PATCH RFC 1/2] INSTALL: recommend Meson instead of autoconf Patrick Steinhardt
2026-03-04  8:23 ` [PATCH RFC 2/2] Makefile: deprecate autoconf build infrastructure Patrick Steinhardt
2026-03-04 18:10 ` [PATCH RFC 0/2] " Junio C Hamano
2026-03-11  7:51   ` Patrick Steinhardt [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=abEe-87CJSm418ln@pks.im \
    --to=ps@pks.im \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.