[gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category: dev-build

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category: dev-build

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 612 bytes --]

Hi,

Another idea for a new category: dev-build.  Proposed description:

  Build systems and related tools.

Some candidates (there are more):

dev-util/bazel
dev-util/cmake
dev-util/cmake-fedora
dev-util/gn
dev-util/gtk-doc-am
dev-util/gyp
dev-util/meson
dev-util/muon
dev-util/netsurf-buildsystem
dev-util/ninja
dev-util/samurai
dev-util/tup
sys-devel/autoconf*
sys-devel/automake*
sys-devel/bmake
sys-devel/cons
sys-devel/gettext (not 100% sure about it)
sys-devel/libtool
sys-devel/make
sys-devel/pmake
sys-devel/qconf
sys-devel/slibtool

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 512 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category: dev-build

[Yuan Liao (Leo3418)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 334 bytes --]

On Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 03:46:23PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Another idea for a new category: dev-build.  Proposed description:
> 
>   Build systems and related tools.

Have you considered the name 'dev-buildsys'?  More straightforward in my
opinion, with the cost of a longer length.

Best regards,
Leo3418

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category: dev-build

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 578 bytes --]

On Sun, 2024-01-07 at 09:50 -0500, Yuan Liao (Leo3418) wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 03:46:23PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Another idea for a new category: dev-build.  Proposed description:
> > 
> >   Build systems and related tools.
> 
> Have you considered the name 'dev-buildsys'?  More straightforward in my
> opinion, with the cost of a longer length.

I have but I don't like the idea of half-shortcuts.  Also, we are really
including some "building" tools like make that aren't really "systems".

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 512 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category: dev-build

[orbea]

On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 17:20:25 +0100
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 2024-01-07 at 09:50 -0500, Yuan Liao (Leo3418) wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 03:46:23PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:  
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Another idea for a new category: dev-build.  Proposed description:
> > > 
> > >   Build systems and related tools.  
> > 
> > Have you considered the name 'dev-buildsys'?  More straightforward
> > in my opinion, with the cost of a longer length.  
> 
> I have but I don't like the idea of half-shortcuts.  Also, we are
> really including some "building" tools like make that aren't really
> "systems".
> 

I suggest that ninja, samurai, bmake, pmake and make are all in the
same category. Currently the first two are in dev-util while the rest
are in sys-devel while they are all build tools that fill a similar
need.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category: dev-build

[Gordon Pettey]

There are at least a few generally language-specific build
tools/systems that can, if you're into masochism, be used to build
other languages (Gradle, Maven, etc.), and tools like Ant, which while
primarily used in Java projects is really just a Makefile with
different syntax and core functions in XML. Does making a new category
for explicitly general-purpose tools like Make and friends ambiguate
where the language-specific tools belong? Should other
non-Make-related packages be moved from their current dev-[language]
locations?

Does dev-util/gyp really belong there, or since it is node-specific,
should there be a dev-js category?

On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 8:58 PM orbea <orbea@riseup.net> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 17:20:25 +0100
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2024-01-07 at 09:50 -0500, Yuan Liao (Leo3418) wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 03:46:23PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Another idea for a new category: dev-build.  Proposed description:
> > > >
> > > >   Build systems and related tools.
> > >
> > > Have you considered the name 'dev-buildsys'?  More straightforward
> > > in my opinion, with the cost of a longer length.
> >
> > I have but I don't like the idea of half-shortcuts.  Also, we are
> > really including some "building" tools like make that aren't really
> > "systems".
> >
>
> I suggest that ninja, samurai, bmake, pmake and make are all in the
> same category. Currently the first two are in dev-util while the rest
> are in sys-devel while they are all build tools that fill a similar
> need.
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category: dev-build

[Eli Schwartz]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1449 bytes --]

On 1/8/24 6:32 PM, Gordon Pettey wrote:
> There are at least a few generally language-specific build
> tools/systems that can, if you're into masochism, be used to build
> other languages (Gradle, Maven, etc.), and tools like Ant, which while
> primarily used in Java projects is really just a Makefile with
> different syntax and core functions in XML. Does making a new category
> for explicitly general-purpose tools like Make and friends ambiguate
> where the language-specific tools belong? Should other
> non-Make-related packages be moved from their current dev-[language]
> locations?
> 
> Does dev-util/gyp really belong there, or since it is node-specific,
> should there be a dev-js category?


gyp is not node specific. It was originally invented by Google, to be
Google's build system for the C++ project known as the chromium web browser.

It is also famously used to build the C++ project known as Node.js (the
interpreter) which node projects use.

It is not a very popular build system because it is written by Google
and as was only to be expected, Google has deprecated it in favor of GN
and thus gyp is largely not used anymore.

Its only revdep in Gentoo is mozc, another large C++ project that
contains no javascript. IIRC, Node.js forked and maintained gyp
internally so they could continue to use it to build C++ software
without being concerned about its being abandoned.


-- 
Eli Schwartz

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 18399 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category: dev-build

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 952 bytes --]

On Mon, 2024-01-08 at 17:32 -0600, Gordon Pettey wrote:
> There are at least a few generally language-specific build
> tools/systems that can, if you're into masochism, be used to build
> other languages (Gradle, Maven, etc.), and tools like Ant, which while
> primarily used in Java projects is really just a Makefile with
> different syntax and core functions in XML. Does making a new category
> for explicitly general-purpose tools like Make and friends ambiguate
> where the language-specific tools belong? Should other
> non-Make-related packages be moved from their current dev-[language]
> locations?
> 
> Does dev-util/gyp really belong there, or since it is node-specific,
> should there be a dev-js category?
> 

In all of my RFCs, I've tried to keep moving stuff out of dev-
<language>/* altogether.  In general, I'd leave it to the maintainers to
decide where a package fits best.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 512 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category: dev-build

[Arsen Arsenović]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 967 bytes --]

Hi!

Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Another idea for a new category: dev-build.  Proposed description:
>
>   Build systems and related tools.
>
> Some candidates (there are more):
>
> dev-util/bazel
> dev-util/cmake
> dev-util/cmake-fedora
> dev-util/gn
> dev-util/gtk-doc-am
> dev-util/gyp
> dev-util/meson
> dev-util/muon
> dev-util/netsurf-buildsystem
> dev-util/ninja
> dev-util/samurai
> dev-util/tup
> sys-devel/autoconf*
> sys-devel/automake*
> sys-devel/bmake
> sys-devel/cons
> sys-devel/gettext (not 100% sure about it)

That's a bit of a toss-up, but I think I lean more towards the side of
sys-libs or so (since, while it indeed provides build-time tools, it is
not really a build system component, and it provides a few other libs).

> sys-devel/libtool
> sys-devel/make
> sys-devel/pmake
> sys-devel/qconf
> sys-devel/slibtool

I like the idea.

Have a lovely day!
--
Arsen Arsenović

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 251 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category: dev-build

[Haelwenn (lanodan) Monnier]

[2024-01-07 15:46:23+0100] Michał Górny:

>Hi,
>
>Another idea for a new category: dev-build.  Proposed description:
>
>  Build systems and related tools.
>
>Some candidates (there are more):
>
[snip]

>sys-devel/gettext (not 100% sure about it)

I think that's the only one I wouldn't include as gettext seems to fit pretty
well in sys-devel/ as it's main purpose is to manipulate .po/pot files and
compile them in .mo files.
(gettext(3) et al being provided either by glibc/musl or by dev-libs/libintl)