Re: [libvirt] [dbus PATCH] build: convert to Meson/Ninja build system

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 09:36:35AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:20:04AM +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:05:23AM +0200, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 9:57 PM Ján Tomko <jtomko(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 05:40:06PM +0200, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > > > > >On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 1:22 AM Fabiano Fidêncio <fidencio(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 8:17 PM Pavel Hrdina <phrdina(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 06:53:30PM +0200, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > > > > >> > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:22 PM Pavel Hrdina <phrdina(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > > >> > This is an intentional change to run syntax-check tests for dist target > > > > >> > as well, but it might be possible to configure it somehow. Anyway, I > > > > >> > would rather prefer to run syntax-check when running ninja dist than > > > > >> > having it as a separate target. > > > > >> > > > > >> osinfo-db-tools has it, libosinfo has it, libvirt-jenkins-ci uses it. > > > > >> This is a pattern already being used and here I have a strong > > > > >> preference for not changing the pattern if we can easily adapt to it. > > > > > > > > > >Just for the record, we had a face-to-face discussion about this and > > > > > > > > Can you record the reasoning as well? > > > > > > A few topics were brought up: > > > - It's closer to what different projects using meson are doing > > > (systemd was the example used); Not a fan of using systemd as an example O:-) > > > - It runs on `ninja dist` without having to run an additional command > > > (`ninja syntax-check`); > > > I think this is the compelling reason that I didn't understand before. > > "ninja dist" is *NOT* the same as "make dist" from autoconf world. > It is in fact equivalent to 'make distcheck'. If we have syntx-check > as a separate target, then we're loosing a safety check at time of > release. > I thought that was exactly the point of keeping the target separate - not to run the tests meant for patch submissions. For a downstream example, I remember us not caring that much for exact spacing or failing copyright year check on our RHEL branches.

(For example QEMU has these checks separate and only ran on the new patch, not the whole codebase)