Hi Daniel, all, On 21 November 2016 at 17:32, Daniel Stone <dan...@fooishbar.org> wrote: > Hi Emil, > > On 30 August 2016 at 18:24, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote: >> From: Emil Velikov <emil.veli...@collabora.com> >> >> Use only internally and explicitly marked as such with commit >> cf04b0a18f2 ("Move private definitions and prototypes to new >> zwayland-private.h") >> >> Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov <emil.veli...@collabora.com> >> --- >> I could not find any users of the API and I doubt there was ever one. If >> people feel nervous about this, we can keep it. > > For the actual series, detaching the discussion from the > wayland-scanner bits in 0/4: > > I think this one is fine, but I'd prefer to merge it at the same time > as the wayland-util split, if and when that happens. > > Patch 2/4 (to move to the -private file) no longer applies, because we > let this series bitrot for so long. Sorry. > No worries, it's not something that crazy of an issue to begin with.
> Patch 4/4 removes whitespace from the other -uninstalled.pc.in files, > but you add the same whitespace into the wayland-util file introduced > in 3/4 and don't fix it up in 4/4. I've addressed all the white space bits, plus fixed the -client one ;-) > As for the actual libwayland-util split, I'm very much on the fence as > to whether it's a good idea. Broadly speaking I do like the idea and > sympathise with the aims, but am not sure how happy distro packagers > would be with an extra binary package to track. What really worries me > though, is transient symbol dependencies: at least with the pkg-config > modifications as-is in 3/4, with wayland-util dropping back to > Requires.private, I believe we'd see the compiler/linker complaining > that a project directly using symbols from wayland-util does not > directly link to it, only transiently via libwayland-{client,server}. > They could fix that by requiring wayland-util, but then they'd need > versioned fallbacks, and we've just made it a fair bit harder for > people to properly link to it. > > Did you test with something that only has > wayland-client/wayland-server (and/or -uninstalled variants) in the > pkg-config file, directly using wl_list/wl_array/etc, and see if they > generated any warnings? > I've tried to answer your questions with the 3/4 commit message, although I might have failed. Tl;Dr; everything is file, see the specifics below. Since I was too lazy to pull/rebuild something crazy big as KF5/the Gnome equiv./other, I've did a pretty trivial example https://github.com/evelikov/wl_link_test - Builds one executable and one shared (DSO) library. - Both containing the same code - wl_{list,array}_init - Explicitly link the DSO w/o undefined symbols - link each binary against libwayland-{client,server}.so - no warnings at build/link time - libwayland-utils.so ends up with NEEDED Tried the above with and w/o the following (the default to Arch) LDFLAGS LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1,--sort-common,--as-needed,-z,relro" -Emil _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel