On 12-01-05 10:24 PM, Eric Anholt wrote: > On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:41:46 -0500, Gaetan Nadon <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 12-01-05 09:17 AM, Colin Walters wrote: >>> Hi Gaetan, >>> >>> On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 19:48 -0500, Gaetan Nadon wrote: >>> >>>> No objections in principle, the doc is convincing. >>>> >>>> We are talking about 240 modules here. A sizable piece of work. >>> Thanks; any suggestions on how to proceed? I don't have commit >>> privileges to the xorg repositories (and no need to get them for such a >>> trivial patch), should I go through individual maintainers or should >>> someone Just Do It? >>> >>> One thing we might want to consider before we change all 240 modules is >>> instead changing xorg-macros to install its autogen.sh as >>> $prefix/bin/xorg-autogen.sh or something, then all of the xorg autogen >>> scripts can just be: >>> >>> #!/bin/sh >>> exec xorg-autogen.sh "$@" >>> >>> This is effectively what we do with gnome-common, except some random >>> modules still have hand-written ones. Consistency - not yet our strong >>> point =/ >>> >> Seems like a brilliant idea. We can then make changes to xorg-autogen.sh >> in the future without having to commit 240 patches. I'd be willing to >> change all the xorg modules. There is an assumption that all modules >> will be configured with the same BINDIR value, or that at least >> xorg-autogen.sh in on the PATH. Looks reasonable. >> >> Could you create the patch for the util-macros package? Making sure it >> works on a Bourne shell for all *BSD, MAC and Solaris OS. It will get >> reviewed on the list and I'll give a good run. If all goes well, a new >> version of xorg-macros will be published. >> >> Note that I will also have to update configure.ac in each module to >> mandate the latest version of xorg-macros (as usual): >> XORG_MACROS_VERSION(1.17) > Given how many people's first interaction with xorg-macros is > configure.ac telling them that it's out of date/missing, I'm not excited > about modules now just saying command not found instead of giving useful > information. The latest thought is to have the util-macros package version check in the copy of autogen.sh in each module. This should not make it any more unpleasant than the current situation.
Having read your comment, I would not make the XORG_MACROS_VERSION(1.17) change. In this transition period, older modules can be built with autoreconf & configure from git using a <= 1.16 xorg-macros. >From a single module developer point of view, the autogen.sh is not needed to build from source. It's not part of the GNU build system architecture. It's a legacy script from the days where autoreconf did not exist and a handful of commands had to be submitted every time. >From what I understand from Colin, FOSS is trying to standardise it's use to ease the build of multiple large projects. Thanks _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
