pacman/test/scripts/meson.build

tests = [
  'parseopts_test.sh',
  'makepkg-template_test.sh',
]

foreach tst : tests
  test(tst,
       BASH,
       protocol : 'tap',
       env : TEST_ENV,
       args : [
         join_paths(meson.current_source_dir(), tst),
       ])
endforeach
Add meson.build files to build with meson Provide both build systems in parallel for now, to ensure that we work out all the differences between the two. Some time from now, we'll give up on autotools. Meson tends to be faster and probably easier to read/maintain. On my machine, the full meson configure+build+install takes a little under half as long as a similar autotools-based invocation. Building with meson is a two step process. First, configure the build: meson build Then, compile the project: ninja -C build There's some mild differences in functionality between meson and autotools. specifically: 1) No singular update-po target. meson only generates individual update-po targets for each textdomain (of which we have 3). To make this easier, there's a build-aux/update-po script which finds all update-po targets and runs them. 2) No 'make dist' equivalent. Just run 'git archive' to generate a suitable tarball for distribution. 2018-07-07 10:29:48 -04:00			`tests = [`
			`'parseopts_test.sh',`
			`'makepkg-template_test.sh',`
			`]`

			`foreach tst : tests`
			`test(tst,`
meson: remove tap-driver.py, use meson's TAP protocol This includes a patch from Andrew to fix pactest's TAP output for subtests. Original TAP support in meson was added in 0.50, but 0.51 contains a bugfix that ensures the test still work with the --verbose flag passed to meson test, so let's depend on that. 2019-06-28 06:43:32 -04:00			`BASH,`
ensure tests are parsed as TAP since they are, in fact, TAP Signed-off-by: Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@archlinux.org> Signed-off-by: Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> 2021-04-05 17:36:06 -04:00			`protocol : 'tap',`
Add meson.build files to build with meson Provide both build systems in parallel for now, to ensure that we work out all the differences between the two. Some time from now, we'll give up on autotools. Meson tends to be faster and probably easier to read/maintain. On my machine, the full meson configure+build+install takes a little under half as long as a similar autotools-based invocation. Building with meson is a two step process. First, configure the build: meson build Then, compile the project: ninja -C build There's some mild differences in functionality between meson and autotools. specifically: 1) No singular update-po target. meson only generates individual update-po targets for each textdomain (of which we have 3). To make this easier, there's a build-aux/update-po script which finds all update-po targets and runs them. 2) No 'make dist' equivalent. Just run 'git archive' to generate a suitable tarball for distribution. 2018-07-07 10:29:48 -04:00			`env : TEST_ENV,`
			`args : [`
			`join_paths(meson.current_source_dir(), tst),`
			`])`
			`endforeach`