On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Chris Michael <devilho...@comcast.net> wrote: > 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....
I am voting to put a big eina log warning in that #if for people who have an old version and make sure that when Wayland fail to setup that warning is correctly displayed. After that it is not our duty anymore. -- Cedric BAIL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
