Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Relax checkMesonPython() for lang/python/tool.mk #5

Conversation

iamleot
Copy link
Collaborator

@iamleot iamleot commented Dec 31, 2023

When lang/python/tool.mk is included and PYTHON_FOR_BUILD_ONLY is not set it defaults to tool and that should be fine for most meson use cases.

Stop warning in such cases.


NOTE: this is probably the first non-dependabot PR here. If any possible other way to contribute is preferred please let me know and I will share it elsewhere! Thank you!

When lang/python/tool.mk is included and PYTHON_FOR_BUILD_ONLY is not
set it defaults to `tool` and that should be fine for most meson use
cases.

Stop warning in such cases.
@iamleot iamleot added the enhancement New feature or request label Dec 31, 2023
@iamleot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

iamleot commented Dec 31, 2023

(I've also set reviewers and assignees, if that's not okay please also let me know! Thanks!)

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (2a93f67) 98.74% compared to head (198577f) 98.74%.

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master       #5   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.74%   98.74%           
=======================================
  Files          66       66           
  Lines       20663    20663           
=======================================
  Hits        20404    20404           
  Misses        223      223           
  Partials       36       36           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@iamleot iamleot marked this pull request as ready for review December 31, 2023 17:09
@iamleot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

iamleot commented Dec 31, 2023

For possible further information... I have noticed that while working on:

  • multimedia/mpv
  • wip/mpv
  • wip/libplacebo

...on wip/libplacebo I have just set PYTHON_FOR_BUILD_ONLY to yes as suggested by pkglint. I have then seen that by default, when including lang/python/tool.mk PYTHON_FOR_BUILD_ONLY is set to tool and that should be fine (e.g. multimedia/mpv is exactly that case).

I think that in the warning we should also suggest PYTHON_FOR_BUILD_ONLY=tool and not PYTHON_FOR_BUILD_ONLY=yes because I think that in most/all cases requiring it as a tool is fine. If you think this part should be done in this PR as well please let me know and/or if you think we should handle that on a dedicate PR please also let me know and I will do that!

Thank you!

@iamleot iamleot changed the title Relax checkMesonPython() for lang/python/tool.mk Relax checkMesonPython() for lang/python/tool.mk Dec 31, 2023
@rillig
Copy link
Owner

rillig commented Jan 8, 2024

Your change looks perfect, thank you for all the work you've put into it.

I don't mind whether you suggest tool instead of yes in a separate PR or in this one.

@iamleot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

iamleot commented Jan 9, 2024

I will do that in a separate PR then! Feel free to merge if that's okay for you and/or let me know if I can «Rebase and merge» or similar!

Thank you Roland!

@iamleot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

iamleot commented Jan 9, 2024

I will do that in a separate PR then!

#7 does that.

@rillig rillig merged commit 50f7653 into master Jan 9, 2024
3 checks passed
@rillig rillig deleted the it-is-okay-to-include-lang-python-toolsmk-and-not-define-python-for-build-only branch January 9, 2024 19:50
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants