Re: Meson and Autotools, or only Meson?

[Pavlo Solntsev <p sun fun gmail com>]

On Thu, 2020-03-26 at 08:55 +0100, Kjell Ahlstedt wrote:
> On 2020-03-26 03:06, Pavlo Solntsev wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-03-25 at 18:49 +0100, Kjell Ahlstedt via gtkmm-list
> > wrote:
> > > These *mm packages can now be built either with Meson or with
> > > Autotools:
> > >
> > > mm-common
> > > libsigc++-2.0, libsigc++-3.0
> > > glibmm-2.4, glibmm-2.66
> > > pangomm-1.4, pangomm-2.44
> > > (gtkmm-documentation-3,) gtkmm-documentation-4
> > > I've put gtkmm-documentation-3 in parentheses because there is no
> > > released tarball with Meson support, it's only in the git repo.
> >
> > How about ninja dist?
> > https://mesonbuild.com/Creating-releases.html
>
> Yes, what about ninja dist? What do you mean? It should work with the
> listed packages. Have you found that it doesn't? Or is your question
> a way of saying that I should have         used ninja dist instead of
> make distcheck in recent releases?
What I am trying to say is that meson together with ninja allows
tarball generation. I am not sure about the archive format. Also, for
upstream API reference, we can make a wiki page at gitlab to see the
resent successful comment. It can be done using CI. Any tarball from
the successful commit can be added to the wiki page with possibility to
download it. This is definitely a big picture. The first step would be
to establish two build systems as a transition stage, then add CI, and
start exploring other options as I described.


> Kjell