[Buildroot] [RFC PATCH 1/7] pkg-meson: new infrastructure

[Eric Le Bihan <eric.le.bihan.dev@free.fr>]

Hi!

On 18-05-07 17:02:56, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon,  7 May 2018 12:57:35 +0200, Eric Le Bihan wrote:
> > Add a new infrastructure to ease the development of packages that use Meson as
> > their build system.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Le Bihan <eric.le.bihan.dev@free.fr>
>
> Thanks for working on this!
>
> > +define inner-meson-package
> > +
> > +$(2)_CONF_ENV		?=
> > +$(2)_CONF_OPTS		?=
> > +$(2)_NINJA		= $(HOST)/bin/ninja
>
> Does this one really needs to be a per-package variable ? It's defined
> with "=" so it doesn't even allow a package to customize this value
> (but I don't think it would be necessary for packages to customize this
> value anyway).
>
> > +$(2)_NINJA_ENV		?=
> > +$(2)_NINJA_OPTS	= $(if $(VERBOSE),-v) -j$(PARALLEL_JOBS)
>
> Same question for this one.

I used variables for ninja executable path and options to avoid
cluttering the *_CMDS parts. These are, indeed, not meant to be
customized. So, I'll drop them.

> > +define $(2)_CONFIGURE_CMDS
> > +	rm -rf $$($$(PKG)_SRCDIR)/build
> > +	mkdir -p $$($$(PKG)_SRCDIR)/build
> > +	PATH=$$(BR_PATH) $$($$(PKG)_CONF_ENV) meson \
> > +		--prefix=/usr \
> > +		--libdir=/usr/lib \
> > +		--default-library $(if $(BR2_STATIC_LIBS),static,shared) \
> > +		--buildtype $(if $(BR2_ENABLE_DEBUG),debug,release) \
> > +		--cross-file $(HOST_DIR)/etc/meson/cross-compilation.conf \
>
> So meson is really not consistent, and some options are "--name=value",
> and some others are "--name value" ?

No. Both patterns are valid for any option. I'll use "--name=value" for
consistency.

> > +#
> > +# Host installation step. Only define it if not already defined by the
> > +# package .mk file.
> > +#
> > +ifndef $(2)_INSTALL_CMDS
> > +define $(2)_INSTALL_CMDS
> > +	$$(HOST_MAKE_ENV) $$($$(PKG)_NINJA_ENV) DESTDIR=$$(HOST_DIR) \
>
> DESTDIR=$$(HOST_DIR) is not correct for host installations, since you
> already build for prefix=$(HOST_DIR).

OK, I'll drop it.

> Other than those questions/issues, looks good to me overall.

Thanks for the review.

Regards,

--
ELB