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.
Due to a copy-paste error when initially implementing this, it actually
uses a duplicate function name, usually resulting in lint_pkgbuild
overwriting the function definition.
Then the PKGBUILD lint gets run twice, one time before the PKGBUILD is
even sourced -- to potentially surprising results, like erroring out on
a pre-existing shell definition that doesn't match our expectations.
Seen in the wild with lint_config triggering an error for
'declare -x arch="foo"'
Signed-off-by: Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@archlinux.org>
Signed-off-by: Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>
Currently the only things we check are:
- Things that should be arrays, are not strings, and vice versa (this
was mostly copy-pasted from the similar code in lint_pkgbuild).
- Variables that are meant to contain pathname components cannot contain
a newline character, because newline characters in pathnames are weird
and also don't play well with future changes intended for the
--packagelist option.
Signed-off-by: Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@archlinux.org>
Signed-off-by: Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>
