<div dir="ltr"><div>It's # yum install 'pkgconfig(foo)'; not # yum install 'pkg-config(foo)' </div>The inconsistent hyphenation is annoying. </div><div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote"> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Peter Hutterer <<a href="mailto:peter.hutterer@who-t.net" target="_blank">peter.hutterer@who-t.net</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:14:30AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:25:40AM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > > On Thu, 22 May 2014 00:18:23 +0200 > > Thierry Reding <<a href="mailto:thierry.reding@gmail.com">thierry.reding@gmail.com</a>> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 12:30:18PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > > > > On Tue, 20 May 2014 13:12:32 -0700 Bill Spitzak <<a href="mailto:spitzak@gmail.com">spitzak@gmail.com</a>> wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > I have to tell you that such one-line-at-a-time cut & paste is > > > > > unbelievably tedious, and my biggest screwups when trying this on a > > > > > second machine was when I missed the slight variations in the autogen > > > > > lines because I was using uparrow to re-run the commands from the last > > > > > repository. That convinced me to remove the $ signs, although I agree > > > > > with you that it is not as nice looking. > > > > > > > > They are not meant to be copied repeatedly. Even basic common sense > > > > says, that if you end up copying them more than once, it would probably > > > > be worth to save them in a script. > > > > > > > > If you manually do those commands every single time you open a new > > > > terminal to work in, you are bound to miss something. > > > > > > > > The commands are an example. They are the foundation on which you can > > > > write your own environment setup. > > > > > > > > OTOH, git-clone is ran only once. 'make' and 'make install' come from > > > > the spine. <a href="http://autogen.sh/configure" target="_blank">autogen.sh/configure</a> arguments are better saved in a script > > > > if there are many of them like for Mesa, but you can always see them in > > > > 'head config.log', too. > > > > > > Would it be an option to provide a jhbuild script that can be used to > > > automatically build everything from source? That should at least remove > > > any ambiguities or distribution specifics and should always work. Doing > > > so has two advantages: it is a script and therefore can save everybody > > > from a lot of typing (or copy/pasting) and it documents the origin and > > > exact command sequences required to build from source. > > > > > > If not everything is to be built from source there is apparently also a > > > way to specify dependencies (via pkg-config files!) that are assumed to > > > be installed by the distribution. > > > > > > I think back in the early days many people used jhbuild to build modular > > > X, though its usage seems to have declined. But perhaps that's just > > > because its so common that nobody considers it worth mentioning anymore > > > or X has stabilized to a point where building everything from source is > > > no longer required. </div></div>we haven't had huge changes that required everyone to rebuild everything regularly - most people get by only updating their specific module set. I think that contributes most to the decline of jhbuild. <div class=""> > > To be honest, I'm not familiar with jhbuild. I have seen people mention > > it on #wayland, though, and fighting with it. > > > It could be nice - should it perhaps be checked into git somewhere, so one > > can keep track of the changes? > > Yes, I think it should definitely be checked in somewhere so people can > easily keep their copy up-to-date. > > > Where? > > Good question. Neither the wayland nor the weston repository look like > they'd be a good fit. Perhaps it could be a separate repository? Or > perhaps make it part of wayland-web? That sounds like a bad choice at > first, but it would put the jhbuild scripts close to the building guide > and therefore may have advantages. </div>the jhbuild script is an xml module file and a jhbuildrc, since you're hosting them somewhere anyway the web project should be good enough. for examples see <a href="http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/util/modular/tree/xorg.modules" target="_blank">http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/util/modular/tree/xorg.modules</a> and <a href="http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/util/modular/tree/jhbuildrc" target="_blank">http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/util/modular/tree/jhbuildrc</a> An example with version information is here: <a href="http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/util/modular/tree/xorg-7.6.modules" target="_blank">http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/util/modular/tree/xorg-7.6.modules</a> so you can decide that some combination is useful for a 1.5 release and keep those together. fwiw, jhbuild is convenient. I use it regularly to build gnome or parts of it and especially for multi-repository projects that I only work on rarely and/or irregularly it is very helpful. the build instructions are then: clone jhbuild, make install it, run jhbuild build, wait and hope. Cheers, Peter <div class="im HOEnZb"> > > > As I personally am on a rolling-release distribution, I don't tend to > > see much problems with too old distro packages. > > So am I, and I usually build distributions from scratch anyway so I > already have a set of scripts to build everything anyway. > > But there are evidently people who are in a different situation and it > may be helpful to have some automatic build that they can run if they > encounter bugs and need to test patches. > > Thierry </div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list <a href="mailto:wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org">wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org</a> <a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel</a> </div></div></blockquote></div> -- Jasper </div>