[Spice-devel] repository reorg
marcandre.lureau at gmail.com
Thu Jun 23 04:56:19 PDT 2011
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Alon Levy <alevy at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:18:11PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 05:00:10PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
>> > Hi All,
> Ok, so take three:
> (1) spice-protocol - remains unchanged. specifically, despite the name, will
> not contain the .proto nor the python codegen bits nor the generated files.
I fail to see why that couldn't be part of a spice-common/protocol
subdirectory, and shipped as a seperate devel package by
distributions. But I didn't read all the conversation. Can you briefly
give the rationale of the changes in your upcoming propositions?
> (2) spice-common (repository spice/common) - new repository, contains:
> spice_codegen.py and friends (python_modules subdir)
> produces a proper shared library, used by spice-server, spice-client, spice-gtk, named
> libspice-common.so.0, containing marshalling and rendering code (including any decoder/encoder)
> plus anything else currently in common (like ssl-verify).
That's an ideal goal, but to avoid having to deal with creating a
proper library (with stability garantee etc..), I would start with a
submodule that will slowly move to various clean lib*.
> (3) spice-client - breakoff client subdir from current spice (maybe rename+remove-the-rest to keep history)
Agree with the fact that it should be split off. But since it's not
going to be the officialy maintained spice-client, I would suggest the
name "spicec" instead.
> (4) spice-server - rename current spice repo (just to keep history)
> (5) spice-gtk - remains, just move it to freedesktop now that we want to keep it.
> (6) spice-all - convenience repository that has the rest as submodules and has a helpful makefile to build them all.
Well, why not just use jhbuild? it does the job fine..
More information about the Spice-devel