| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Signed-off-by: Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Jelle van der Waa <jelle@vdwaa.nl>
Signed-off-by: Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>
|
|
If an alternative rootdir is specified in either meson or configure it's
not respected in the generated man pages.
Signed-off-by: Jelle van der Waa <jelle@vdwaa.nl>
Signed-off-by: Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>
|
|
A number of pages don't actually exist as html inside the source tree,
and need to be generated even though they are manpages.
This caused the website.tar.gz target to only work inside a dirty tree
initially created by autotools.
Signed-off-by: Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@archlinux.org>
Signed-off-by: Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>
|
|
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.
|
