> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> On Behalf Of Dominig ar Foll
> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 9:50 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Dev] [X/Wayland] RPM Macros for conditional build with X,
> Wayland, both (and none!)
>
>
> Le 09/12/2013 08:31, Zhao, Juan J a écrit :
> >
> >
> > Yes, some packages were modified to add wayland support to avoid
> unnecessary X building-requirement.
> > A X-Free repo(devel:wayland:Mobile) was set up, libX11 like packages
> were removed. And we are still on the road to influence the efforts to
> clean up the code in wayland condition. Also we developed a tool who
> can warn out the X related APIs and provide the API backtrace info.
> >
> > About your question for {with wayland} and {without x} macro. The
> background is like this:
> > This flag is defined in X-Free repo only. Using this macro is to
> protect IVI to avoid the applications bugs who have direct dependencies
> on X APIs. And there is no influence for mobile with X and current IVI
> totally. In the future, we can still add that macro to resolve this
> issue.
> The main issue that I see in accepting a {without x} macro, is the risk
> induced by the lack of clear directive about the various possible
> combinations.
>
> The Stéphane's proposition, presents the main advantage to assume no
> default. It does cover the cases which are used in Tizen :
> - X
> - Wayland with X backward compatibility
> - Wayland only (without X compatibility)
>
> It's in my view far preferable.
Got the point, this is a good idea, better than my previous one to use {without
x}.
Thanks,
Juan
>
>
> --
> Dominig ar Foll
> Senior Software Architect
> Intel Open Source Technology Centre
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
