On 5/2/25 5:16 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > So the discussion seems to have died out. Have we decided that > unlike Makefile-based approach, it is too cumbersome to teach the > Meson based approach to allow user-specified commands that have > different basename to stand in for the command we expect in the > build based on Meson [*], and what the v3 iteration of this series > does is a good place to stop? I don't have any objections to teaching git's own meson.build to do this, and I don't think it would be particularly cumbersome. But as I'm not the person who would use it, really, I was hoping others would state their preferences. ... One possibility would be if meson itself was adapted to support setting simple "machine description" settings via the command line. I seem to recall someone had proposed at one point on the meson ticket tracker, to support e.g. ``` meson setup -Dbinaries.cc=gcc -Dbinaries.sh=/bin/dash ``` but I cannot recall what came of the discussion. I'll try to find the relevant ticket after the weekend (going offline right around now). > [Footnote] > > * It is trivial to say "make SHELL_PATH=/bin/dash", but we do not > add support for anything like 'meson -dSHELL_PATH=/bin/dash', and > we only allow the search path for fixed-name commands to be > configured and tell our developers that they have to write an > extra file paths.ini just to be able to do so. -- Eli Schwartz
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
