Hi, As theses are new macros, we can make an exception and backports them to xdt 4.18. Don't forget to bump minimal xdt versions in autogen :) Yes, others distros haven't noticed the problem because they don't re run autoreconf.
Romain, Le 16 octobre 2023 11:31:17 GMT+02:00, "Gaël Bonithon" <[email protected]> a écrit : > > I'd vote for 2): I don't think there's much risk either and we've been > testing these macros for a while now with xfdesktop, xfce4-notifyd and more > recently xfce4-panel, at least. > > > > Cheers, > Gaël > > > > ------- Original Message ------- > On Monday, October 16th, 2023 at 5:58 AM, Alex <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > thanks for the forward Brian! As well added Skunnyk and Andre. > > > > > > > > Personally I would go for the more conservative 1) to prevent possible > > further trouble with them on the stable branch ... maybe with a comment to > > swap them out for the xfce-4.20 official macros, once xfce4.20 is released. > > > > > > > > Though I did not look into the Makros in detail ... if you are sure that 2) > > will be save / will not have side effects, it as well would be fine with > > it. > > > > Cheers, Alex > > > > > > Am 16.10.23 um 03:51 schrieb Brian Tarricone: > > > > > Gah, sorry about that, I didn't even think of the fact that distros > > would need the newer 4.19 dev-tools package for packaging.>> CC'd Alex; > > Alex, for some more context (some of it got snipped): we've started > > depending on some macros I added to xfce4-dev-tools in the 4.19.x series > > (the XDT_CHECK_OPTIONAL_FEATURE stuff), but in stable versions of things > > (xfce4-terminal, xfce4-notifyd). Turns out that's making things difficult > > for packagers.>> So I think we have two good options:>> 1) We can put the > > new m4 macros in a .m4 file, prefix them with something else so they don't > > conflict, and copy it into each project that uses them and wants to do > > stable releases for now. Then those modules can run against xfce4-dev-tools > > 4.18 again.>> 2) We can backport the new macros to the 4.18 branch of > > xfce4-dev-tools. Since they're just additions, I don't think there's much > > risk of problems.>> Ok ok, there's also 3) go back to manually listing out > > the dependencies in each configure.ac and gating X11/Wayland support on > > them. But I don't feel like doing that ;)>> Gaël, Alex, what do you think? > > Feel free to CC anyone else who should weigh in. Personally I think #2 is > > the easiest, especially as more non-core modules want to support Wayland > > and need compile-time support for it, but not sure putting new macros in > > the stable series of xfce4-dev-tools is ok to do.>> -brian>> On Sun, Oct > > 15, 2023, at 15:11, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sun, 2023-10-15 at 21:08 +0000, Gaël Bonithon wrote: > > > >>>> We have the same issue for xfce4-notifyd but then I assumed 0.9 was > > > the > > > >>>> development branch leading to a 0.10 release for Xfce 4.20. So we > > > pushed > > > >>>> it to > > > >>>> experimental without too much fuss. > > > >>> > > > >>> Xfce4-notifyd 0.9.x are not dev versions as far as I know. > > > > > > Well that doesn't change the fact that we can't upload it to unstable > > > now :) > > > >>> > > > >>>> Well, if you have it and it's sensible, yes sure. > > > >>> > > > >>> See the attached patch. Not all XDT_CHECK_OPTIONAL_FEATURE features > > > are > > > >>> reproduced, but it should be enough. And since it has a limited > > > impact, it > > > >>> should continue to apply until Xfce 4.20. > > > > > > Thanks, I'll try that and report back (also, no need to encrypt direct > > > mail, > > > since it's sent in cleartext to a mailing list anyway). > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > >
