On 10/23/12 2:21 PM, Peter Åstrand wrote: > We could perhaps clarify that those patches are not strictly necessary. > It should always be possible to build TigerVNC even without them, but > with somewhat limited functionality. If such a build fails, please report.
This is not a realistic configuration. When someone wants to contribute to a project, they want to be able to build a fully-functional binary. Otherwise, how would you know whether the inability to use a particular feature was due to a bug or due to having a limited version of FLTK? > Also, it seems the problem was with linking Fluid. Since TigerVNC does > not depend on Fluid, one solution could be to just comment out the Fluid > build from the FLTK makefile. Yes, except that the best practice for pointing the CMake build system to a custom build of FLTK is to specify the full path of fluid, which causes CMake to find the rest of the FLTK installation (headers, libraries, etc.) Thus, if fluid doesn't build, then it's minimally more difficult to build TigerVNC, and most users would not proceed to try building TigerVNC if FLTK didn't build cleanly. Rather than defend the existence of a bug, why don't you just say you'll fix it and move on? You're spending more time arguing than it would probably take to fix this issue. I'm just pointing out the issue to you, so arguing with me is kind of irrelevant. > Another good thing is that many of our patches are being accepted by the > FLTK project, some of them even into the 1.3 branch. With the latest > FLTK snapshot, fewer patches should be required even for full > functionality, but we haven't been able to verify this yet. Hopefully, > FLTK will also release a 1.3.1 version soon. which makes things even more confusing, unless you update the instructions accordingly and, preferably, maintain a repository of patches that need to be applied to a particular snapshot of FLTK. IMHO, if the upstream FLTK project does not ultimately accept all of the TigerVNC patches, that lends more credence to the argument that pulling FLTK out of the build tree was a bad idea, but again, not my problem. If you guys want to make it difficult for people to build TigerVNC, you will reap what you sow. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_sfd2d_oct _______________________________________________ Tigervnc-users mailing list Tigervnc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tigervnc-users
