z-run VS meson

I couldn't agree more with you about Ansible... I've started using Ansible in two projects, and I think it was enough for me... Ansible is perhaps great when you have granular tasks, that maybe don't need to communicate between them, or perhaps that don't have too much logic (or worse loops). However, as soon as your Ansible "scripts" start becoming actual "scripts", everything gets out of hand... (Also the performance is terrible due to the fact that each task is "bundled" on the host, copied remotely, extracted, executed, deleted, repeat for each and every instance of the same task...)

----

Now about your `tricorder`, by looking at the readme, I gather it just allows one to run the same command over multiple hosts (filtered by name or tag), but nothing beyond that? How could one run for example a pipeline of tools on the remote hosts? (I assume `bash -c 'tool-1 | tool-2'`, but with careful escaping?)

Perhaps a first step towards actually being an "Ansible replacement" would be to bring back in some "scripting" ability. For example instead of giving each command as arguments, there could be a "library of scripts", and the user can choose one of those to run on each remote host. Then those scripts could be written in whatever language the user chooses (`bash`, Python, Ruby, etc.)

Also, with regard to the "library of scripts", one thing that Ansible got right is the possibility to put multiple different tasks in the same file, thus one doesn't need 20 files for 20 small tasks, but instead these can be put inside the same YAML file.

----

For example this is how I did it in my own "Ansible replacement", <https://github.com/volution/z-run>, like for example, one can write something like these snippets: <https://github.com/volution/z-run/blob/development/examples/...> (see `ssh / launch / simple` that runs locally which just calls `z-run ssh "${_target}" ':: ssh / remote / main' "${@}"`, which is in itself a non trivial `bash` script, one that will run remotely.)

In the end, what I think we need, is a tool to easily run "scripts" on a remote system, but make it as easy to use as it would be on the local machine. (Sort of like the RPC but across SSH and for scripts.)

Good point!

I'll add to that READMEs, LICENSEs, SBOMs (Software Bill of Materials), example configuration files, etc. How to supply all those files when all one gets is a single binary executable?

Simple! Bundle everything in the executable.

As a bonus, because the tool outputs these files, it can now generated them dynamically. For example instead of a bland configuration file, with all the possible integrations commented out, it could either try to auto-detect where it's running and what's available, or present the user with a question-answer session to fill in the details.

----

For example, a pet project of mine <https://github.com/volution/z-run>:

z-run --readme # shows the README with `less` (if on TTY) or to `stdout`

z-run --readme-html # for the HTML version to be opened in `lynx`

z-run --manual # or --manual-man or --manual-html

z-run --sbom # or --sbom-json or --sbom-html

It even gives you the source code:

z-run --sources-cpio | cpio -t

So, does your tool need a `.desktop` file? Just create a flag for that.

Or, if there are too many such extra files needed to be placed wherever provide an `--extras-cpio` and dump them as an archive, or if placing them requires some work, provide an `--extras-install`, but before `sudo`, kindly ask the user for permission.

Granted all this requires some extra work, and increases the bulkiness of the executable, but:

* all that extra code can be extracted into a common library; (I intend to do that for my software;)

* if all these are compressed, especially being text-only, they are a fraction of the final executable;

----

I am especially proud of the `--sources-cpio` option. Is something broken with a particular version of the tool that you rely on? Great, instead of bumbling around GitHub to find the particular commit that was used to build this particular version, I can just get the sources from my tool and use those. All I need is the build tools, which in case of Go is another `.tar.gz`.

[1]: https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/issues/8153

The Meson build system Version: 1.2.3 Source dir: /home/patrik/workspace/Waybar Build dir: /home/patrik/workspace/Waybar/build Build type: native build Project name: waybar Project version: 0.9.24 C compiler for the host machine: cc (gcc 13.2.0 "cc (Debian 13.2.0-5) 13.2.0") C linker for the host machine: cc ld.bfd 2.41 C++ compiler for the host machine: c++ (gcc 13.2.0 "c++ (Debian 13.2.0-5) 13.2.0") C++ linker for the host machine: c++ ld.bfd 2.41 Host machine cpu family: x86_64 Host machine cpu: x86_64 Compiler for C++ supports link arguments -lc++fs: NO Compiler for C++ supports link arguments -lc++experimental: NO Compiler for C++ supports link arguments -lstdc++fs: YES Program git found: YES (/usr/bin/git) WARNING: You should add the boolean check kwarg to the run_command call. It currently defaults to false, but it will default to true in future releases of meson. See also: https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/issues/9300 Has header "filesystem" : YES Checking if "nl_langinfo with _NL_TIME_WEEK_1STDAY, _NL_TIME_FIRST_WEEKDAY" : links: YES Run-time dependency threads found: YES Found pkg-config: /usr/bin/pkg-config (1.8.1) Run-time dependency fmt found: YES 9.1.0 Run-time dependency spdlog found: YES 1.12.0 Run-time dependency wayland-client found: YES 1.22.0 Run-time dependency wayland-cursor found: YES 1.22.0 Run-time dependency wayland-protocols found: YES 1.32 Run-time dependency gtkmm-3.0 found: YES 3.24.8 Run-time dependency dbusmenu-gtk3-0.4 found: YES 16.04.0 Run-time dependency gio-unix-2.0 found: YES 2.78.1 Run-time dependency jsoncpp found: YES 1.9.4 Run-time dependency sigc++-2.0 found: YES 2.12.1 Found CMake: /usr/bin/cmake (3.27.7) Run-time dependency libinotify found: NO (tried pkgconfig and cmake) Run-time dependency epoll-shim found: NO (tried pkgconfig and cmake) Run-time dependency libinput found: YES 1.23.0 Run-time dependency libnl-3.0 found: YES 3.7.0 Run-time dependency libnl-genl-3.0 found: YES 3.7.0 Run-time dependency upower-glib found: YES 1.90.2 Run-time dependency libpipewire-0.3 found: YES 0.3.85 Run-time dependency playerctl found: YES 2.4.1 Run-time dependency libpulse found: YES 16.1 Run-time dependency libudev found: YES 252 Run-time dependency libevdev found: YES 1.13.1 Run-time dependency libmpdclient found: YES 2.20 Run-time dependency xkbregistry found: YES 1.6.0 Run-time dependency jack found: YES 0.126.0 Run-time dependency wireplumber-0.4 found: YES 0.4.15 Library sndio found: YES Checking for function "sioctl_open" with dependency -lsndio: YES Run-time dependency gtk-layer-shell-0 found: YES 0.8.1 Run-time dependency systemd found: YES 252 Computing int of "__cpp_lib_chrono" : 201611 Configuring waybar.service using configuration Run-time dependency cava found: NO (tried pkgconfig and cmake) Looking for a fallback subproject for the dependency cava Executing subproject cava cava| Project name: cava cava| Project version: 0.9.1 cava| C compiler for the host machine: cc (gcc 13.2.0 "cc (Debian 13.2.0-5) 13.2.0") cava| C linker for the host machine: cc ld.bfd 2.41 cava| Has header "iniparser.h" : NO cava| Has header "iniparser4/iniparser.h" : NO Message: cava is not found. Building waybar without cava subprojects/cava-0.9.1/meson.build:65:3: ERROR: Problem encountered: iniparser library is required A full log can be found at /home/patrik/workspace/Waybar/build/meson-logs/meson-log.txt WARNING: Running the setup command as `meson [options]` instead of `meson setup [options]` is ambiguous and deprecated.

As it happens, I recently landed a PR in meson to add a clang-like Weverything mode that includes all of that, so you can get a minimal list of more or less all GCC warnings, organized by version, from the meson source here: https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/blob/710a753c78077220b13a9f7e999dcdb61339efb1/mesonbuild/compilers/mixins/gnu.py

Came here to post the same. The answer for How to build software? is Meson[1] for C and C++ and also other languages. Works well on Windows and Mac, too.

I’ve written a small Makefile to learn the basic and backgrounds. Make is fine. But the next high-level would have been Autotools, which is an intimidating and weird set of tools. Most new stuff written in C/C++ use now Meson and it feels sane.

[1] https://mesonbuild.com

If you are very fortunate, you'll be able to choose something else. I like meson myself: it looks a bit like python, it's popular, small, simple, well-documented, easy to install and update, and it works well everywhere.

I suggest changing the build tool. Meson improved C and C++ a lot:

https://mesonbuild.com/

The dependency declaration and auto-detection is nice. But the hidden extra is WrapDB, built-in package management (if wanted):

    https://mesonbuild.com/Wrap-dependency-system-manual.html

> C's only REAL problem (in my opinion) which is the lack of dependency management. Most everything else can be done with a makefile and a half decent editor.

Care to hear about our lord and saviour Meson?

Both of your quoted problems are mutually incompatible: dependency management isn't the job of the compiler, it's a job for the build or host system. If you want to keep writing makefiles, be prepared to write your own `wget` and `git` invocations to download subprojects.

Meanwhile, Meson solves the dependency management problem in a way that makes both developers and system integrators/distributions happy. It forces you to make a project that doesn't have broken inter-file or header dependency chains and cleans up all the clutter and cruft of a makefile written for any non-trivial project, while making it trivial to integrate other meson projects into your build, let other people integrate your project into theirs, and provides all of the toggles and environment variables distribution developers need to package your library properly. You can really have your cake and eat it too.

https://mesonbuild.com/

Other people going down this route seem to end up writing cmake replacements instead. I'm thinking of something like meson here except that meson never intended to transpile to cmake.