[Telepathy] One big repository
xclaesse at gmail.com
Thu Dec 1 13:57:35 PST 2011
Le jeudi 01 décembre 2011 à 18:44 +0000, Jonny Lamb a écrit :
> Email is way too hard for me.
> What is this I don't even
> Basically, the idea is to throw the following Telepathy components into
> one repository (to rule them all):
> * farstream
> * gabble
> * glib
> * logger
> * mission-control
> * qt4
> * salut
> * spec
> * yell
To avoid confusion, all those needs "telepathy-" prefix. We are not
going to ship libglib, libqt4 and libgstfarstream :)
Note that tp-yell is soon going to die, I already have all its code
ported in tp-glib itself for call1.
> Open questions
> Build system
> At the moment, in this test repository, things are starting to get
> better by not using their own copy of the spec and using upstream
> instead, but stuff like distcheck won't work at all because I've not
> told tp-glib to distribute with a copy of the spec.
> Basically, how do people think the build system should work? I
> originally thought it'd be neat to be able to:
> % cd telepathy/gabble
> % ./configure
> % make
I would make a global ./configure && make. but with a --disable-foo for
each submodules. I'm not sure GNOME people will like being forced to
have qt-dev to build telepathy :)
The question is would KDE people be shoked if tp-qt drops cmake in favor
> Both salut and gabble use wocky. This whole single repository thing is
> nothing to do with Wocky and currently it's not to do with merging
> gabble and salut, so I'm tempted to just leave gabble and salut with
> having their own Wocky submodules. Does that sound reasonable?
Or we could finally make its own public library? Do we have real stuff
blocking this, or just api stability paranoid?
* Unit test infrastructure should also be shared. atm tp-qt4 copied
tp-glib fake CMs and both diverted, we should merge them back. I hope
that won't be too difficult.
More information about the telepathy