Re: [PATCH 6/6] meson: subprojects: replace submodules with wrap files

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 5/19/23 11:25, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:

>   * dtc - the distro should always have it anyway
>   * libvfio-user - don't think this has found its way
>                    into any distros yet. So if we don't
>                   bundle it, distros have to pacakge it
>                   or re-bundle with their QEMU bulds

I think it's not ABI-stable either.

>   * keycodemapdb - has always been intended to be a copylib,
>                    not packaged separately by distros. In
>                   retrospect I think this wa probably a
>                   mistake. None the less today, it will
>                   need to be re-bundled by distros if we
>                   omitted it.
>
> I think there's a decent case to be made for 'dtc' to be dropped
> from 'make-release', but keep the other two.

Sure.

> >    script:
> >      - scripts/git-submodule.sh update
> >          $(sed -n '/GIT_SUBMODULES=/ s/.*=// p' build/config-host.mak)
> > +    - meson subprojects download $(cd build/subprojects && echo *)
>
> Why is this addition needed ?  Isn't meson supposd to automatically
> download the wrapped subprojects it needs without explicit user
> action ?

Because this is the script for the test jobs; they don't get 
subprojects/ from the build artifacts, and they don't rerun "meson 
setup" either.  So "build/subprojects" is already populated but the 
source tree does not have the downloads.

"meson test" also runs submodule tests, and they fail.  See 
https://gitlab.com/bonzini/qemu/-/jobs/4309651149#L305 for an example.

> > @@ -296,6 +296,7 @@ option('capstone', type: 'feature', value: 'auto',
> >          description: 'Whether and how to find the capstone library')
> >   option('fdt', type: 'combo', value: 'auto',
> >          choices: ['disabled', 'enabled', 'auto', 'system', 'internal'],
> > +       deprecated: { 'git': 'internal' },
> >          description: 'Whether and how to find the libfdt library')
>
> Do we need to deprecate this, as opposed to removing it ?
>
> We've considered build time options to not be subject to a deprecation
> process, just documenting changes in the release notes.

No issue with that.  In this case it's so easy that I didn't bother.

Paolo