Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:54:53 + Tom Hacohen said: > On 12/01/16 00:42, Cedric BAIL wrote: > > Hello, > > > > As we are moving forward with a stable API for binding, one of the > > main "weirdness" that is still exposed is that you need to actually > > require two

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 20:33:34 +1000 David Seikel said: > > >> Hmm, no one else commented, so I will. >> >> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:42:45 -0800 Cedric BAIL >> wrote: >> >> >>> As we are moving forward with a stable API for

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

I think we need to fix that - period. If folk don't have the priority on it yet maybe elementary being added will be a motivating factor. I'd be happy with module level builds as an intermediate so you can just rebuild what you're working on. Is that feasible? On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 at 10:56, Tom

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:54 AM, Tom Hacohen wrote: > On 12/01/16 00:42, Cedric BAIL wrote: >> As we are moving forward with a stable API for binding, one of the >> main "weirdness" that is still exposed is that you need to actually >> require two differents library to use

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

On 12/01/16 00:42, Cedric BAIL wrote: > Hello, > > As we are moving forward with a stable API for binding, one of the > main "weirdness" that is still exposed is that you need to actually > require two differents library to use efl. Also the only reason why we > haven't merged elementary so far as

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > On 21/01/16 11:31, Stefan Schmidt wrote: >> On 12/01/16 12:11, Stefan Schmidt wrote: >>> On 12/01/16 01:42, Cedric BAIL wrote: As we are moving forward with a stable API for binding, one of the main

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

Hello. On 21/01/16 11:31, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > Hello. > > On 12/01/16 12:11, Stefan Schmidt wrote: >> Hello. >> >> On 12/01/16 01:42, Cedric BAIL wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> As we are moving forward with a stable API for binding, one of the >>> main "weirdness" that is still exposed is that you

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

Hello. On 12/01/16 12:11, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > Hello. > > On 12/01/16 01:42, Cedric BAIL wrote: >> Hello, >> >> As we are moving forward with a stable API for binding, one of the >> main "weirdness" that is still exposed is that you need to actually >> require two differents library to use

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Tom Hacohen wrote: > On 14/01/16 17:18, Tom Hacohen wrote: [snip] > Just talked to Daniel about it, and apparently we tried it a few months > ago, but it didn't work out well. Autotools didn't like the fact that > although it asked us to

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

On 14/01/16 17:18, Tom Hacohen wrote: > On 14/01/16 01:45, Carsten Haitzler wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:50:20 + Andrew Williams >> said: >> >>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 at 13:22 Tom Hacohen wrote: >>> On 13/01/16 10:54, David Seikel wrote:

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

On 14/01/16 01:39, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:07:01 + Andrew Williams > said: > >> Hi, >> >> I agree with all your points and consider the merge a good thing. However >> I'm not sure why we're avoiding a --disable flag for those who specifically >>

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

On 14/01/16 01:52, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:25:58 + Tom Hacohen said: > >> On 12/01/16 00:42, Cedric BAIL wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> As we are moving forward with a stable API for binding, one of the >>> main "weirdness" that is still exposed is

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

On 14/01/16 01:45, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:50:20 + Andrew Williams > said: > >> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 at 13:22 Tom Hacohen wrote: >> >>> On 13/01/16 10:54, David Seikel wrote: >>> More specifically, I disagree with

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 17:25:07 + Tom Hacohen said: > On 14/01/16 17:18, Tom Hacohen wrote: > > On 14/01/16 01:45, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > >> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:50:20 + Andrew Williams > >> said: > >> > >>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 at 13:22 Tom

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 17:18:03 + Tom Hacohen said: > On 14/01/16 01:45, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:50:20 + Andrew Williams > > said: > > > >> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 at 13:22 Tom Hacohen wrote: > >> >

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:07:01 + Andrew Williams wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with all your points and consider the merge a good thing. > However I'm not sure why we're avoiding a --disable flag for those > who specifically don't want it - is it much work to satisfy a use >

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

Hi, I agree with all your points and consider the merge a good thing. However I'm not sure why we're avoiding a --disable flag for those who specifically don't want it - is it much work to satisfy a use case? Cheers, Andy On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 at 23:57, Carsten Haitzler

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

On 13/01/16 10:54, David Seikel wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:07:01 + Andrew Williams > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I agree with all your points and consider the merge a good thing. >> However I'm not sure why we're avoiding a --disable flag for those >> who specifically

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

On 12/01/16 00:42, Cedric BAIL wrote: > Hello, > > As we are moving forward with a stable API for binding, one of the > main "weirdness" that is still exposed is that you need to actually > require two differents library to use efl. Also the only reason why we > haven't merged elementary so far as

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:21:15 + Tom Hacohen wrote: > On 13/01/16 10:54, David Seikel wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:07:01 + Andrew Williams > > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I agree with all your points and consider the merge a good thing. >

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

On 01/13/2016 09:24 PM, David Seikel wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:07:01 + Andrew Williams > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I agree with all your points and consider the merge a good thing. >> However I'm not sure why we're avoiding a --disable flag for those >> who

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:50:20 + Andrew Williams said: > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 at 13:22 Tom Hacohen wrote: > > > On 13/01/16 10:54, David Seikel wrote: > > > > > More specifically, I disagree with raster on the build now and remove > > later.

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:07:01 + Andrew Williams said: > Hi, > > I agree with all your points and consider the merge a good thing. However > I'm not sure why we're avoiding a --disable flag for those who specifically > don't want it - is it much work to satisfy a use

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:25:58 + Tom Hacohen said: > On 12/01/16 00:42, Cedric BAIL wrote: > > Hello, > > > > As we are moving forward with a stable API for binding, one of the > > main "weirdness" that is still exposed is that you need to actually > > require two

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:52 AM Andrew Williams wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 at 13:22 Tom Hacohen wrote: > > > On 13/01/16 10:54, David Seikel wrote: > > > > > More specifically, I disagree with raster on the build now and remove > > later. Elementary

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 at 13:22 Tom Hacohen wrote: > On 13/01/16 10:54, David Seikel wrote: > > > More specifically, I disagree with raster on the build now and remove > later. Elementary is a completely separate module (to the point that > it's in its own repo at the

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:30:26 + Mike Blumenkrantz wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:52 AM Andrew Williams > wrote: > > > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 at 13:22 Tom Hacohen > > wrote: > > > > > On 13/01/16 10:54, David

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

Hmm, no one else commented, so I will. On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:42:45 -0800 Cedric BAIL wrote: > As we are moving forward with a stable API for binding, one of the > main "weirdness" that is still exposed is that you need to actually > require two differents library to use

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

On 01/12/2016 09:41 PM, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > Hello. > > On 12/01/16 01:42, Cedric BAIL wrote: >> Hello, >> >> As we are moving forward with a stable API for binding, one of the >> main "weirdness" that is still exposed is that you need to actually >> require two differents library to use efl.

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

Hello. On 12/01/16 01:42, Cedric BAIL wrote: > Hello, > > As we are moving forward with a stable API for binding, one of the > main "weirdness" that is still exposed is that you need to actually > require two differents library to use efl. Also the only reason why we > haven't merged elementary

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

Hello. On 12/01/16 11:33, David Seikel wrote: > Hmm, no one else commented, so I will. > > On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:42:45 -0800 Cedric BAIL > wrote: > >> Also the only reason why we haven't merged elementary so far as been >> because it still depend on webkit-efl and

Re: [E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 20:33:34 +1000 David Seikel said: > Hmm, no one else commented, so I will. > > On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:42:45 -0800 Cedric BAIL > wrote: > > > As we are moving forward with a stable API for binding, one of the > > main "weirdness" that

[E-devel] Merging Efl and elementary

Hello, As we are moving forward with a stable API for binding, one of the main "weirdness" that is still exposed is that you need to actually require two differents library to use efl. Also the only reason why we haven't merged elementary so far as been because it still depend on webkit-efl and