On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 06:37:45PM -0400, Eli Schwartz wrote: > 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. It wouldn't be hard to do indeed. But I think that the proposed patch should be good enough for now as it does what we want in basically every usecase I can think of, and it does allow the user to tweak as required. So I'd propose to go with the proposed pragmatic approach and then iterate in the future if we ever see that it continues to be a problem. > 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). That would be nice to have indeed. Thanks! Patrick
