[webkit-dev] [webkit meeting notes] build systems

Marc-Antoine Ruel maruel at chromium.org
Fri Apr 16 10:14:17 PDT 2010

Please guys,

No need to speculate here on what I proposed at the session since Evan
somehow left some details out and let me reinforce some points. For those
who missed the session, please understand that what's Peter said isn't
exactly what we agreed on.

Here's some data points:
- No plan to generate qtmake or makefile.am or whatever else
- No plan to force anyone to switch
- No plan (for now) to get any automatic file list for the checkout (some
build system do that)
- No plan for any "template based" project generation
- Making a new fully functional backend to gyp *is* involved. It's a big
deal. There's no use in a 95% done build system.

The rough proposal is:
- De-chromify most .gyp and .gypi files currently living in webkit.org,
split the files off as necessary in the process to untangle conditions.
- With coordination with aroben, look at implementing a faithful copy of
apple's win port, with a potential switch over *if it works out*. No
- Some people expressed interest into generating the file list to their
build system and having the build system import the generated project files.
That wouldn't be a complete backend implementation. Obviously, complete
backend implementation at http://code.google.com/p/gyp are welcome as long
as they have unit tests.

What you can do *only if you want*:
- Extract the file list of your port project into a single simple file and
have your build system "import" this file.

I'm not talking about pushing anyone's back and I have *no intention* to. So
unless you want to actively submit patches towards the proposal, please let
this thread die, it's an unproductive use of my time. I don't plan to do
that in the very short term as I have other things on my plate, I'll
definitely do this incrementally.


2010/4/16 Peter Kasting <pkasting at google.com>

> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Kevin Ollivier <kevino at theolliviers.com>wrote:
>> Perhaps, but in any case, I think the first step there is for the Gyp
>> developers to try implementing support and see how it goes. However, from
>> that perspective, until Gyp has support for those formats, isn't a
>> discussion about switching for other ports a bit premature on the WebKit
>> side? i.e. that would be next steps for Gyp, not next steps for WebKit. I'd
>> think Gyp would implement support for those formats and then come here and
>> ask people to consider a switch.
> Which is basically what we're proposing here.
> PK
> _______________________________________________
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org
> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20100416/29849574/attachment.html>

More information about the webkit-dev mailing list