Nothing besides being pure (?) C implementations.
it looks like Muon and Samurai are just encouraged
bootstrapping methods.
Exactly.
s/Nix language/Nix tool/? Or am I misunderstanding scope here?
Nix tool is the reference implementation of Nix language.
It also looks like Meson uses “build description” instead of build
script, see Tutorial.
or (as satted here) the Nix infrastructure? It’s a bit unclear what you mean by
“infrastructure”: does nixpkgs count? CI/CD? This might benefit from a
wording clarification or replacement.
As far as I remember, GitHub - NixOS/nix: Nix, the purely functional package manager implements many different tools from the same codebase; in particular, because of security reasons, nix-daemon is separated from nix-env
NT Windows? I don’t think Nix is ever going on there given the whole
/nix directory. It may be better to speak instead of MacOS/*BSD.
s/build script files/build descriptions/?
Ok.
What exactly is “an infrastructure to the typical tasks”.
The typical confugurePhase && buildPhase && installPhase. Ideally, the same experience the current quasi-autotools provide should be replicated via Meson.
As an additional note, do we need to more concretely define what “quasi-autotools” means anywhere in the RFC?
The current build system is similar but not identical to autotools.
“It” is unclear here.
I need to reword this block.
Hm, honestly not sure that the Meson language counts as a programming
language.
Disclaimer here: any language that can be interpreted by a computing device, real or imaginary, is a programming language.
Yes, this definition includes HTML as a programming language, and yes again, Turing-complete is not a synonymous of programming language, but a subset of it.
Nonetheless I will reword it
this would also require some effort on the side of distro packagers, who would largely have to rewrite their packages.
OK, I will include it. On the other hand, most of current distros already had Meson in their repos, besides many softwares that use Meson as build tool.
Relevance? How exactly is this a drawback?
Including a Python interpreter and a C++ compiler is an example of complexifying the bootstrap route.
Thinking on it as a direct acyclic graph, it would like using a C compiler to build both Python and C++, in order to build both Meson and Ninja, whereas the same C compiler can build Muon and Samurai, cutting this intermediary steps.
Maybe refer to the top of the RFC here rather than restating down here.
I prefer to restate it. This is a typical interaction in many RFCs that propose modifications to the status quo, and this particular argument serves as a recapitulation.