HAL 0.5.10

[Gabriel C]

[ Sorry for that I forgot to CC hal at lists.freedesktop.org ]
Gabriel C wrote:
> Sjoerd Simons wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 02:12:04PM +0200, Danny Kukawka wrote:
>>> On Montag, 15. Oktober 2007, Sjoerd Simons wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 02:57:49PM +0200, Danny Kukawka wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> The hal-info package need a HAL >= 0.5.10 due to new fdi-directives
>>>>> (*_outof) which wouldn't work with older HAL versions. It make no sense
>>>>> to use this hal-info version with hal =< 0.5.10 since you would lose many
>>>>> of the fdi-rules.
>>>> Still having configure doing check for things that only matter at runtime
>>>> is a bad practise IMHO. A warning instead of abort would be okay. But with
>>>> the current check, we can't create the hal-info packages without hal, which
>>>> is quite annoying.
>>> This is nothing new. You couldn't build all features of the package (e.g. 
>>> KillSwitch feature) without HAL before. It make simply no sense to build 
>>> hal-info for systems with older HAL versions. Do you have a build system 
>>> without minimal install which didn't contain HAL? 
>> A debian build system really is very minimal chroot with some basic build
>> environment (just gcc, make, libc-dev etc). All other stuff gets pulled in as
>> needed by the declared build-depends. 
>>
>> Needing to pull in hal just to satisfy this check is basically a waste of time
>> and resources. And it doesn't help anyways as the build system is never going
>> to be the system on which the package is actually installed/used on.
> 
> Yes same here on Frugalware :)
> 
> You could try this patch :
> 
> http://crazy.dev.frugalware.org/just_WARN.patch
> 
> ( I just quick made a diff from my testing tree )
> 
> If you wonder why it patch the VERSION file , simply because is missing from 
> hal-info tarball and you cannot use autoreconf/autoconf.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
>>   Sjoerd
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Gabriel
>