2 ms·

Could be; I'm not an evangelist for meson and if it doesn't work for cross compilation I'd use something else, likely cmake. I don't cross compile very often,

by downut 4y ago

Could be; I'm not an evangelist for meson and if it doesn't work for cross compilation I'd use something else, likely cmake. I don't cross compile very often, so for me it works great. I have run into sadness with meson subprojects, but I'm unconvinced they are a big win.

saurik 4y ago
The problem is that I don't get to make the decision to use meson or cmake: you make that decision when you develop your project around meson; which ties back to the point of this thread: as a user attempting to compile something (which FWIW should essentially always be a cross compile... a native compile is essentially never what you want as it bleeds way too much random machine state into your build), autotools is still king (and certainly much better than the haphazard piles of programmable cmake that people tend to throw together when they use cmake; at least with cmake,npeople tend to develop stuff where I just give up on their compilation scripts and compile all their code with my own replacement scripts... sadly, I haven't managed to do that reasonably for glib yet so I could avoid their meson hell).
- jameshilliard 4y ago
  For us(https://buildroot.org/ https://buildroot.org/) cross compiling with meson tends to be significantly more reliable than autotools already as it tends to be much better at separating host/target artifact builds within a project and setting up the toolchain correctly, autotools tends to need lots of package specific hacks in my experience. We have a fairly customized integration(https://github.com/buildroot/buildroot/blob/master/package/pkg-meson.mk https://github.com/buildroot/buildroot/blob/master/package/p...) which we've iterated on for a while that works quite well these days. The cross compilation support with upstream meson has improved a lot over the years and while it's quite mature now IMO it still takes a bit of env setup to work correctly(but once it works it tends to not break much).

by downut 4y ago

saurik 4y ago

The problem is that I don't get to make the decision to use meson or cmake: you make that decision when you develop your project around meson; which ties back to the point of this thread: as a user attempting to compile something (which FWIW should essentially always be a cross compile... a native compile is essentially never what you want as it bleeds way too much random machine state into your build), autotools is still king (and certainly much better than the haphazard piles of programmable cmake that people tend to throw together when they use cmake; at least with cmake,npeople tend to develop stuff where I just give up on their compilation scripts and compile all their code with my own replacement scripts... sadly, I haven't managed to do that reasonably for glib yet so I could avoid their meson hell).

jameshilliard 4y ago
For us(https://buildroot.org/ https://buildroot.org/) cross compiling with meson tends to be significantly more reliable than autotools already as it tends to be much better at separating host/target artifact builds within a project and setting up the toolchain correctly, autotools tends to need lots of package specific hacks in my experience. We have a fairly customized integration(https://github.com/buildroot/buildroot/blob/master/package/pkg-meson.mk https://github.com/buildroot/buildroot/blob/master/package/p...) which we've iterated on for a while that works quite well these days. The cross compilation support with upstream meson has improved a lot over the years and while it's quite mature now IMO it still takes a bit of env setup to work correctly(but once it works it tends to not break much).