[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Re: bazel-built binaries vs Debian packages



> Yes. I've had this problem packaging tensorflow. I'm not upstream as
> well so I have no desire to do things the bazel way, but it is a big
> pain getting it to do things the distro (proper, reproducible) way.

That's a shame. I wasn't really expecting anything else, but I was hoping...

> As you are upstream too my advice would be: use a better build system
> that isn't antithetical to proper distro packaging. There are plenty
> to choose from these days.

You say that, but... this isn't the place for a build system rant, but the package in question is a compiler which produces about 10k build artifacts, generated source code and headers including tools which generate source code produced from generated source code, and artifacts produced by building the compiler locally and invoking it, and I simply can't find any build systems which support all this. Meson's not extensible, cmake doesn't do proper cross compilation, raw make is almost impossible to write correct build files for when you're generating source and headers, etc, etc. With my upstream hat on, bazel would give me the full Canadian Cross build experience almost seamlessly. With my packager hat on, of course, I end up sending myself passive-aggressive emails about using a different build system... what I've currently got is a bespoke toy bazel clone written in Lua which generates ninjafiles. It works, more or less, but I would very much like to move to something supported and understandable. bazel's the only one which I've found which meets all my requirements.

Back on topic: what's the current blocking problem?

Reply to: