Mailing List Archive

On Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 03:46:23PM +0100, Micha? Górny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Another idea for a new category: dev-build. Proposed description:
>
> Build systems and related tools.

Have you considered the name 'dev-buildsys'? More straightforward in my
opinion, with the cost of a longer length.

Best regards,
Leo3418

Hi!

Micha? Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Another idea for a new category: dev-build. Proposed description:
>
> Build systems and related tools.
>
> Some candidates (there are more):
>
> dev-util/bazel
> dev-util/cmake
> dev-util/cmake-fedora
> dev-util/gn
> dev-util/gtk-doc-am
> dev-util/gyp
> dev-util/meson
> dev-util/muon
> dev-util/netsurf-buildsystem
> dev-util/ninja
> dev-util/samurai
> dev-util/tup
> sys-devel/autoconf*
> sys-devel/automake*
> sys-devel/bmake
> sys-devel/cons
> sys-devel/gettext (not 100% sure about it)

That's a bit of a toss-up, but I think I lean more towards the side of
sys-libs or so (since, while it indeed provides build-time tools, it is
not really a build system component, and it provides a few other libs).

> sys-devel/libtool
> sys-devel/make
> sys-devel/pmake
> sys-devel/qconf
> sys-devel/slibtool

I like the idea.

Have a lovely day!
--
Arsen Arsenovi?

[2024-01-07 15:46:23+0100] Micha? Górny:

>Hi,
>
>Another idea for a new category: dev-build. Proposed description:
>
> Build systems and related tools.
>
>Some candidates (there are more):
>
[snip]

>sys-devel/gettext (not 100% sure about it)

I think that's the only one I wouldn't include as gettext seems to fit pretty
well in sys-devel/ as it's main purpose is to manipulate .po/pot files and
compile them in .mo files.
(gettext(3) et al being provided either by glibc/musl or by dev-libs/libintl)

On Sun, 2024-01-07 at 09:50 -0500, Yuan Liao (Leo3418) wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 03:46:23PM +0100, Micha? Górny wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Another idea for a new category: dev-build. Proposed description:
> >
> > Build systems and related tools.
>
> Have you considered the name 'dev-buildsys'? More straightforward in my
> opinion, with the cost of a longer length.

I have but I don't like the idea of half-shortcuts. Also, we are really
including some "building" tools like make that aren't really "systems".

--
Best regards,
Micha? Górny

On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 17:20:25 +0100
Micha? Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 2024-01-07 at 09:50 -0500, Yuan Liao (Leo3418) wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 03:46:23PM +0100, Micha? Górny wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Another idea for a new category: dev-build. Proposed description:
> > >
> > > Build systems and related tools.
> >
> > Have you considered the name 'dev-buildsys'? More straightforward
> > in my opinion, with the cost of a longer length.
>
> I have but I don't like the idea of half-shortcuts. Also, we are
> really including some "building" tools like make that aren't really
> "systems".
>

I suggest that ninja, samurai, bmake, pmake and make are all in the
same category. Currently the first two are in dev-util while the rest
are in sys-devel while they are all build tools that fill a similar
need.

There are at least a few generally language-specific build
tools/systems that can, if you're into masochism, be used to build
other languages (Gradle, Maven, etc.), and tools like Ant, which while
primarily used in Java projects is really just a Makefile with
different syntax and core functions in XML. Does making a new category
for explicitly general-purpose tools like Make and friends ambiguate
where the language-specific tools belong? Should other
non-Make-related packages be moved from their current dev-[language]
locations?

Does dev-util/gyp really belong there, or since it is node-specific,
should there be a dev-js category?

On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 8:58?PM orbea <orbea@riseup.net> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 17:20:25 +0100
> Micha? Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2024-01-07 at 09:50 -0500, Yuan Liao (Leo3418) wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 03:46:23PM +0100, Micha? Górny wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Another idea for a new category: dev-build. Proposed description:
> > > >
> > > > Build systems and related tools.
> > >
> > > Have you considered the name 'dev-buildsys'? More straightforward
> > > in my opinion, with the cost of a longer length.
> >
> > I have but I don't like the idea of half-shortcuts. Also, we are
> > really including some "building" tools like make that aren't really
> > "systems".
> >
>
> I suggest that ninja, samurai, bmake, pmake and make are all in the
> same category. Currently the first two are in dev-util while the rest
> are in sys-devel while they are all build tools that fill a similar
> need.
>

On 1/8/24 6:32 PM, Gordon Pettey wrote:
> There are at least a few generally language-specific build
> tools/systems that can, if you're into masochism, be used to build
> other languages (Gradle, Maven, etc.), and tools like Ant, which while
> primarily used in Java projects is really just a Makefile with
> different syntax and core functions in XML. Does making a new category
> for explicitly general-purpose tools like Make and friends ambiguate
> where the language-specific tools belong? Should other
> non-Make-related packages be moved from their current dev-[language]
> locations?
>
> Does dev-util/gyp really belong there, or since it is node-specific,
> should there be a dev-js category?


gyp is not node specific. It was originally invented by Google, to be
Google's build system for the C++ project known as the chromium web browser.

It is also famously used to build the C++ project known as Node.js (the
interpreter) which node projects use.

It is not a very popular build system because it is written by Google
and as was only to be expected, Google has deprecated it in favor of GN
and thus gyp is largely not used anymore.

Its only revdep in Gentoo is mozc, another large C++ project that
contains no javascript. IIRC, Node.js forked and maintained gyp
internally so they could continue to use it to build C++ software
without being concerned about its being abandoned.


--
Eli Schwartz

On Mon, 2024-01-08 at 17:32 -0600, Gordon Pettey wrote:
> There are at least a few generally language-specific build
> tools/systems that can, if you're into masochism, be used to build
> other languages (Gradle, Maven, etc.), and tools like Ant, which while
> primarily used in Java projects is really just a Makefile with
> different syntax and core functions in XML. Does making a new category
> for explicitly general-purpose tools like Make and friends ambiguate
> where the language-specific tools belong? Should other
> non-Make-related packages be moved from their current dev-[language]
> locations?
>
> Does dev-util/gyp really belong there, or since it is node-specific,
> should there be a dev-js category?
>

In all of my RFCs, I've tried to keep moving stuff out of dev-
<language>/* altogether. In general, I'd leave it to the maintainers to
decide where a package fits best.

--
Best regards,
Micha? Górny