[llvm-dev] Contributing Bazel BUILD files similar to gn

[Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 4:49 PM Stefan Teleman via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 7:16 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I expect most of it is probably a statement free of value judgments:
> Some other projects chose to use it/some folks have to use it for other
> reasons, clearly there's enough use that it's motivated folks to
> have/maintain Bazel builds for LLVM for years. Rather than judging their
> choices as bad/lesser/wrong - might be useful to accept that some folks had
> their reasons and they're trying to make the most of the situation. I don't
> think anyone's making an argument that LLVM should switch to Bazel/that
> that would be better than the CMake we're using, and I think it's helpful
> to return the favor and not suggest that other projects would be better off
> switching to CMake over Bazel - they no doubt have their reasons.
>
> Please do not manufacture statements that I did not make. I never
> suggested, or stated, anywhere, that some other imaginary project
> using Bazel should switch to CMake.
>
> I did state that I do not find Bazel to be a better alternative to
> CMake. My statement is based on direct experience with both.
>

I don't think anyone tried to convince you otherwise, but we're not trying
to replace CMake here, not even put Bazel there as something that would be
supported on any level close to CMake.
So I'm puzzled by this angle you're pushing?



> If the intent behind Bazel is not to present it as a better
> alternative to CMake, then what is the intent?


The intent behind Bazel is that it offers different functionalities than
CMake (I explained my perception of some of them earlier in the thread:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-October/146182.html ).
Does it make it strictly "a better alternative to CMake"? I don't think so.
But why should we debate the "intent behind Bazel"?
The reality is just that it exists, and that other OSS projects are using
it for whatever reasons.



> Instead of maintaining
> this impenetrable mystery as to why a Bazel build system should be
> included in LLVM, please take the time to advocate for Bazel with
> technical facts, than "someone at Google really likes it".
>
> Just because someone likes and maintains an alternative build system
> for LLVM, somewhere, that does not automatically mean, or imply that
> it should be upstreamed.
>
> For all I know, someone might be building their fork of LLVM with
> autoconf. I am sure they have their own very good reasons for doing
> so. Should we, therefore, bring back autoconf?
>

If there is a user-base out-there that can't easily depend on the CMake
config we provide, *and* there are upstream maintainers that step up to
maintain it, why not?


>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Stefan Teleman
> stefan.teleman at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20201029/13a2e69c/attachment.html>