Hi, +1 vote for option 2, this is an exceptional situation and just adding those macros shouldn't cause any problem if I understood it right.
Cheers, Andre Miranda Oct 16, 2023, 13:57 by [email protected]: > 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, >> > > >> > >>
