[pulseaudio-discuss] [PATCH] build-sys: Check for bluez package

[Tanu Kaskinen]

On Fri, 2014-10-31 at 23:28 +0100, Peter Meerwald wrote:
> if bluez development files are not installed, compilation of the
> recently added native headset backend fails:
> 
>   CC       modules/bluetooth/libbluez5_util_la-backend-native.lo
> modules/bluetooth/backend-native.c:36:33: fatal error: bluetooth/bluetooth.h: No such file or directory
>  #include <bluetooth/bluetooth.h>
> 
> this patch adds a check for bluez >= 4.101
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Meerwald <pmeerw at pmeerw.net>
> ---
>  configure.ac | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
> index f165eb4..6e45dc6 100644
> --- a/configure.ac
> +++ b/configure.ac
> @@ -1046,6 +1046,10 @@ fi
>  AS_IF([test "x$BLUETOOTH_HEADSET_BACKEND" != "xofono" && test "x$BLUETOOTH_HEADSET_BACKEND" != "xnull" && test "x$BLUETOOTH_HEADSET_BACKEND" != "xnative"],
>      [AC_MSG_ERROR([*** Invalid Bluetooth Headset backend])])
>  
> +AS_IF([test "x$BLUETOOTH_HEADSET_BACKEND" = "xnative"],
> +    [PKG_CHECK_MODULES(BLUEZ, [ bluez >= 4.101 ], [],
> +        [AC_MSG_ERROR([*** BLUEZ library not found (required by native headset backend)])])])
> +

I think we shouldn't fail if the backend wasn't explicitly set by the
user. I'm not sure what the fallback should be... should we select the
ofono backend instead? Or null? I'd probably vote falling back to ofono.

-- 
Tanu