On 09/29/2014 09:17 AM, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 09:06:30 -0400 Chris Michael <devilho...@comcast.net> > said: > >> On 09/29/2014 07:47 AM, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: >>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 09:52:23 +0200 Cedric BAIL <cedric.b...@free.fr> said: >>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Carsten Haitzler <ras...@rasterman.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 23:44:32 +0200 Cedric BAIL <cedric.b...@free.fr> said: >>>>>> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Lucas De Marchi >>>>>> <lucas.de.mar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Em 28/09/2014 08:46, "Graham Gower" <graham.go...@gmail.com> escreveu: >>>>>>>> I've attempted to build using the easy_efl.sh script and received the >>>>>>>> build error referenced in the subject (full build log follows >>>>>>>> message). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is there a particular version of udev that is required now, but hasn't >>>>>>>> been put in the autoconf goo? I have udev 182 on a linux distro >>>>>>>> without systemd. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From >>>>>>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/src/libudev/libudev.sym?id=946f1825751919a176cd0039002a514de0c9c70f >>>>>>> >>>>>>> libudev 199 >>>>>> >>>>>> Question as always how many distribution ship this library and how >>>>>> many don't. Should we make 199 mandatory or should we just disable the >>>>>> code that require 199 (I guess it is related to wayland). >>>>> >>>>> since systemd and udev merged... a lot seem to have stopped updating udev >>>>> at all and may b e on a multi-year-old udev (eg 2011). so our choices are >>>>> to force an upgrade or work on these distros, or we need a way to emulate >>>>> this udev call inside eeze iof udev is older. that means someone has to >>>>> do the emulation code work there. >>>> >>>> Do we really need to ? We could just disable Wayland support if udev >>>> is to old, as I think that is the only think that rely on it. The >>>> question is more what about other system than Linux. >>> >>> that makes for a poor eeze api that may or may not work based on a hidden >>> udev version at compile time of eeze. >>> >> >> Well, perhaps for the moment we can detect the udev version and just >> #ifdef the internal eeze code to skip that function call. Fixes the >> build problem while Not breaking code for people that have a sane udev >> version. Thoughts ?? > > but downside is we have an eeze fn that now is broken for some and not > others... and then when some try wayland things mysteriously fail.. we'll hit > this sooner or later in one form or another. best get it sorted now while > fresh. >
Ok. Makes sense :) So...what is the general "agreed" plan for sorting this ?? I've seen a couple of thoughts on this thread, but no clear plan/path. I don't mind doing the legwork if we all can agree on a path.... dh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Slashdot TV. Videos for Nerds. Stuff that Matters. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=160591471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
