On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 09:08 +0100, Matthieu Herrb wrote: > On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 10:26:58AM -0500, Gaetan Nadon wrote: > > On Sun, 2010-01-03 at 18:16 +0100, Matthieu Herrb wrote: > > > > > Hi and best wishes for 2010, > > > > > > There are duplicated checks for xmlto in more and more X.Org packages. > > > I've 2 problems with that: > > > > > > - the 1st one is just code duplication > > > - the 2nd one is that the code currently used doesn't allow to ignore > > > an installed xmlto package. > > > I want this because the base OpenBSD system doen't have xmlto (and other > > > systems also don't have it) yet I want to have consistant X builds, > > > wether > > > or not xmlto is installed as a 3rd party package. > > > > > > > I have noticed the use of the logic: "if the tool exist, then build it, > > otherwise ignore it". I had on my long-term todo list to review those > > behaviours. There is an on-going effort to move the specs away from > > xorg-docs into their respective modules. This will add the number of > > modules building documentation. > > > > Before reviewing th details of patches, I'd like to review the desired > > behaviours. Adding a macro to util-macros is exposing it to 250 modules. > > It must have the potential of being useful for many of those. Let' see > > how this plays out. > > Sure. I would like to see the way docs are handled standardized before > more modules start to format their own docs, because otherwise it's going > to become a nightmare for platforms which don't have the same tools > as Linux.
Great. > > > The module, say xfs, decides if it wants to build doc or not. The > > default (auto) is to build the doc if the tool is present. If xmlto is > > not found a warning is issued and the makefile completes successfully. > > Yes. That was the behaviour that's currently implemented. > > > > If the builder specifies with-xmlto=no, a warning is issued and XMLTO is > > unset. Is the warning necessary? The builder asked not to build. Is it > > necessary (or even wise) to unset the variable set by AC_PATH_PROG? The > > makefile completes successfully. > > My patch adds a warning if XMLTO is set in the environment and > --with-xmlto=no is specified on the command line. If only --with-xmlto=no > is specified, there won't be any extra warning. Ok, I missed that. > > > If the builder specified -with=yes, and the tool is not found, should > > it not issue an error and stop? You specifically asked to build it. For > > a developer, it is not important, but for an automated build machine, it > > needs to stop when something goes wrong, however it happens. > > Yes that should probably be done. I was speculating here, the more opinions the better. > > > I wanted to spell out the functions the macro provide to see if they are > > applicable to other modules as well. I agree with the problem you raised > > and I am trying to apply your solution to more than a few modules. > > > > One suggestion: would it be useful to factor out the check for xmlto in > > a macro (XORG_CHECK_XMLTO)? This would allow other modules to make their > > own decision about what to do when xmlto is not available. Look at > > XORG_CHECK_DOCBOOK. > > Yes. Again what's important for me here, is to be able to explicitely > tell the build system to not use those tools, even if they are available. > We don't want those to become mandatory to build X modules (either > by providing pre-processed docs in the source tarballs, or by just > don't formatting the docs if the tools are not there). > Ok. That confirms what I understood. It's a tool issue. I naively assumed all the tools invoked by Makefiles were available on all platforms. In fact, I thought it was a hard requirement. The consequence of not having the same tools on all platforms is some type of platform dependant code in the Makefiles. I know little about the tools that build doc, but the first option would be to find/use common tools. > > > > There are other tools used to build docs, so I can foresee other macros > > based on this one. > > Agreed too. This is why it's important to adress the issue before > it becomes a total mess. I would hate to have to manage dozen of different > hacks to handle the build of docs on BSD systems. > > > > Some comments on the patch itself > > - The macro should be minimum version 1.5 > > Other have pointed at this too. Agreed. > > > - The comment is confusing: XORG_CHECK_XMLTO or XORH_WITH_XMLTO? > > - The comment should explain how to/why use the macro > > Those are easy to fix in the next version of the patch. > Of course. > > > > Somewhat unrelated: > > I installed OpenBSD in a virtualBox. I haven't hunt down the toolchain > > yet. It's be nice to list the tools that are or are not available in > > this wiki: http://wiki.x.org/wiki/RequiredPackages. I did it for Ubuntu > > and OpenSolaris. > > I've added basic information. Thanks.
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
