[PATCH weston v2 0/2] Separate Weston from libweston

[Benoit Gschwind]

Hello Pekka,

I did not made an extensive check, but at less I tested it
(drm-/x11-backend), and the idea of the patch is ok for me.

Nothing is in stone, go for this way and fix issue when they arise.

maybe I would choose weston for libweston and weston-compositor for the
compositor, but that doesn't matter.

Tested-by: Benoit Gschwind <gschwind at gnu-log.net>
Ack-by: Benoit Gschwind <gschwind at gnu-log.net>

Best regards.


On 22/06/2016 14:28, Quentin Glidic wrote:
> On 22/06/2016 13:44, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>> On Thu,  9 Jun 2016 15:20:35 +0300
>> Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen at collabora.co.uk>
>>>
>>> After these two patches, we have weston-the-compositor sources in
>>> compositor/,
>>> and libweston sources in libweston/.
>>>
>>> Since these patches have been generated with git format-patch -M and so
>>> probably cannot be applied from email, I made the branch available at:
>>> https://git.collabora.com/cgit/user/pq/weston.git/log/?h=migrate2
>>>
>>> v2: move screen-share.c and note weston-launch.
>>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> so far only Yong has given a Reviewed-by. Bryce gave a sort-of ok but
>> not an official tag, can I take that as an Acked-by?
>>
>> Reviews, Acks, anyone, please?
>> Or do we not want this?
>>
>> Or should I just go and land this with Yong's R-b and Bryce's A-b, does
>> anyone care?
>>
> 
> I don’t know about the best practice for #include, but it passes
> distcheck so:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Quentin Glidic <sardemff7+git at sardemff7.net>
> Tested-by: Quentin Glidic <sardemff7+git at sardemff7.net>
> 
> We definitely want that, as it makes it much clearer which files belong
> to which part of weston.
> 
> Cheers,
>