Chromium Switching from Ninja to Siso(groups.google.com) |
Chromium Switching from Ninja to Siso(groups.google.com) |
I wonder if the end goal is to use Bazel for Chromium and Siso is an incremental step to get there
edit: asked and answered, Siso is a "drop-in" replacement for Ninja, so presumably it can read .ninja files, and so GN probably didn't need to change much to accommodate it.
This is one area where I think it makes some sense to build your own. Most projects only use a fraction of the capability of a typical build system. The last time I did this I managed the whole thing in just 300 lines of code.
I say this as a fan of Bazel.
gyp could produce ninja files. gn is short for generate ninja. Now gn produces files compatible with siso
Ninja compatible, for the flags that chromium uses. There’s some behaviour they’ve tuned for their use case.
Never heard of it, and ninja is the only way to build C++20 modules alongside CMake.
Then again, that is something that Chromium probably will never bother with.
Just Google things.
This new dependency should not really be an issue.
That's not my experience at all. Part of my job is to think about weird corner cases, I'm not sure why a build script should be any worse than what I normally deal with.
It isn't hard to create a basic build system. However there are a lot more rare corner cases than anyone who sets out to create one as a side project realizes and so in almost all cases their build systems work for the easy/common situations, but in lots of weird cases it doesn't work. Often those corner cases will happen on setups that make sense for one exactly person in the world but for everyone else is stupid. (think cross compiling on haiku-os for a vax running netbsd)
Which is to say if you want to create a build system that needs to be your only goal. You can maybe make the goal create the build system that some project needs (Chromium in this case) needs, but you won't be doing any hacking on the project (Chromium) itself because all your time will be spent on the build system.
Since everyone I know thinks of build systems as a side project they should just choose one that works. I use cmake, which works well despite the warts. I've heard good things about build2 and bazel, but I have no experience with either. I have used ninja as well (that is handwritten ninja files), but it isn't intended for that purpose and so in general I wouldn't recommend it.
That work building “yet another build tool” could have gone in to programmatically generating bazel BUILD files. So, there was an active choice here somewhere; we just don’t know all the information as to why effort was diverted away from Bazel and toward building a new tool.
I trust them to make good decisions, so I would like to understand more. :)
Seems like Siso supports Starlark, so maybe its a step in Bazels direction after all.
This tool is substantially less complex than Bazel, nor is it a reimplementation of Bazel. Ninja's whole goal in life is to be a very fast local executor of the command DAG described by a ninja file, and siso's only goal is to be a remote executor of that DAG.
This is overall less complex than their first stabs at remote execution, which involved standing up a proxy server locally and wrapping all ninja commands in a "run a command locally which forwards it to the proxy server which forwards it to the remote backend" script.
Google did try that for Android (AOSP). They made a tool that generated thousands? of BUILD files to get AOSP building with Bazel.
But the migration to Bazel was aborted for unknown reasons.
And in these cases you really see the impact of internal dependencies (building rust/llvm takes around 30-40% of the entire build). The upside is that you can patch and debug absolutely any part of the system.
Bootstrapping everything is exactly how it's done correctly--and how it's actually done in practice in Guix.
I mean sure if you have a business to run you outsource this part to someone else--but you seem to think it's not done at all.
Supply chain attacks have been happening pretty much non-stop the past years. Think it's a good idea to use binary artifacts you don't know how they were made (and thus what's in them)? Especially for build tools, compilers and interpreters.
>And why is that location more valid of a decision than the one that doesn't require building the build system from source?
Because you only have to review a 250 Byte binary (implementing an assembler) manually. Everything else is indeed built from source, including make, all the way up to Pypy, Go, Java and .NET (and indeed Chromium).
I've never gone all the way to the bottom, but now that I know it's possible I cannot resist the challenge to try it.
It's dishonest to not mention the millions upon millions of lines of source code you also have to verify to know that dependencies are safe to use. Compiling from source doesn't prevent supply chain attacks from happening.
In my opinion there is more risk in getting a safe Siso binary in going through this whole complicated build everything from scratch process vs Google providing a trusted binary to use since you have to trust more parties to not have been compromised.
Anyway, installing Go is easy enough, especially for someone who apparently builds Chromium from source already.
I've used it a fair amount, to build x86 on x86_64, to build arm 32 on x86_64, etc. It will also let you build x86_64 on x86_64 but for a different CPU type, so i can build packages/binaries for older systems on a newer system (like, a system with no avx-whatever can be build on a current-gen machine where the compilation goes way faster but builds binaries for the older system.)
This kind of control is not commonly seen because most people don't want or need to build it all from source. But it makes sense in some contexts, like for embedded or security critical systems.