[Spice-devel] [spice-common 00/13] Improvements to spice-common configure.ac/Makefile.am

[Christophe Fergeau]

On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 05:21:41AM -0500, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> > There's a change every few months in spice-protocol, so yeah, before
> > making a release of spice-server/spice-gtk which uses new features from
> > spice-protocol, we'd need to make a release. This is how it already
> > works for vd_agent and the qxl driver.
> 
> yes, and it's a pain for adding features to the agent,

Imo, having a submodule, or having a separate module both have their
different set of issues,

> We will have to disagree, submodules are convenient once your wrap
> your head around it (just like many other git concepts). That's the
> reason why we use them in the first place.

Well, from my side, the reason we started using them is because they
_seemed_ convenient (not much experience with submodules back in the
days), and after a while, they don't seem that convenient to me. Maybe
I failed at wrapping my head properly around them (I tried different
things in the past), in which case a description of your setup/workflow
may be useful.

> 
> I really don't think we need to argument configure-time speed. If you
> are after that, we are better off just removing autofoo.

Well, I'm not suggesting something that drastic ;) Not running
spice-protocol configure every time is an easy win without making huge
changes to what we have now.

> 
> > bundling is frowned upon by distributions (
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries ), even
> > though the spice-protocol situation is a bit borderline here. But in
> > general, moving from duplicating the spice-protocol code in multiple
> > tarballs to having one reference tarball is a move in the right
> > direction.
> > 
> 
> And yet bundling is more and more common: the distro model is not such
> a panacea  (no need to list all projects doing that one way or
> another). And in the case of spice modules, there isn't much to
> "share" in common packages.

All spice modules share the protocol definition, so it sounds better to
have that in one module with well defined releases which they all depend
on, rather than having each module using a specific version of the
protocol. There really is no need to bundle it, apart from lazyness on
our side.

Christophe

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/spice-devel/attachments/20141204/d8a8a5b9/attachment.sig>