Ok. At least I can use USE_HOST_SCANNER variable or continue to patch Wayland Makefiles. That is not a problem for me.
Best Regards, Andrey K. On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaala...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 14:13:23 +0300 > Andrew Kosteltsev <kostelt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi guys, > > > > This is no versioning question. I think when the host,target is not equal > > to build (I mean configure options --build,--taget,--host) we can compile > > two scanners: > > Sorry, indeed, this thread was hijacked for the versioning discussion, > because it really matters which version of the scanner you happen to > use. > > > 1) scanner built by cross compiler and has original name > (wayland-scanner) > > 2) scanner built by BUILD_CC and has complex name, for example, > > arm-xxx-linux-gnueabihf-wayland-scanner (this scanner can be in the non > > install binaries list) > > > > That is all. > > > > In this case the engineer who prepare the package can make decision about > > installation the second scanner into his development environment (in the > > same way as cross-compiler in his toolchain) to be able using this > > build-machine scanner for build other packages for the same target > machine. > > > > I think it is not too complex but allows to build sources in one stage. > > Right, but your patch seems to add quite a lot of open-coded stuff that > should come from automake internals, IMO. Personally I would not be too > comfortable landing that - it is complicated code that bypasses > automake somewhat. It looks like it will always build the scanner twice > even for native builds, and I think it also breaks the "host scanner" > option. > > OTOH, you currently can (right?) build Wayland twice out-of-tree, first > configured for the build, the second configured for the host. It uses > the same common automake build code that is always used. You always > have at least some step for making the build scanner available. Anyway, > all that you write up in some meta-build system once, so the saved > effort is minimal. > > There's some movement towards Meson, which would also solve the > cross-build issue. > > > Thanks, > pq >
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
