[PATCH weston] build: Define wayland prereq version
emil.l.velikov at gmail.com
Sat May 21 09:37:58 UTC 2016
On 20 May 2016 at 21:35, Bryce Harrington <bryce at osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 09:48:17AM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> On 12 May 2016 at 09:13, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 12 May 2016 11:12:28 +1000
>> > Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer at who-t.net> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 01:18:59PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
>> >> > Establishes a single variable for defining the libwayland version
>> >> > requirements. Enforces the same version dependency between
>> >> > libwayland-client and libwayland-server, as recommended by pq in the
>> >> > 1.11 release discussions.
>> >> >
>> >> > Signed-off-by: Bryce Harrington <bryce at osg.samsung.com>
>> >> > ---
>> >> > configure.ac | 12 +++++++-----
>> >> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> >> >
>> >> > diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
>> >> > index 2ca1f4e..0b23fc4 100644
>> >> > --- a/configure.ac
>> >> > +++ b/configure.ac
>> >> > @@ -4,6 +4,8 @@ m4_define([weston_micro_version], )
>> >> > m4_define([weston_version],
>> >> > [weston_major_version.weston_minor_version.weston_micro_version])
>> >> >
>> >> > +m4_define([WAYLAND_PREREQ_VERSION], "1.10.0")
>> >> how comes the line above uses  and here you use ""? is that intentional?
>> >> (I keep forgetting whether there's a difference between the two in m4)
>> > Yeah, I'm not that sure about using a m4 define. It is one way to do
>> > it, but the quotes do look suspicious.
>> > FWIW, Mesa uses a big list of common dependency variables too, maybe
>> > copy that approach?
>> > CC'ing Quentin and Emil, they probably know what's good.
>> In all honesty I don't know which one is better, so any
>> info/references will be appreciated. For the time being (personally)
>> I'd stick with the following as it reads a bit easier ;-)
> Alright, so I've tested several different variations. I've tested both
> using version 1.10.0 (which must pass), and 1.99.0 (which must fail)
> N=10 N=99
> m4_define([WAYLAND_PREREQ_VERSION], "1.N.0") PASS FAIL --> Okay
> m4_define([WAYLAND_PREREQ_VERSION], [1.N.0]) PASS FAIL --> Okay
> m4_define([WAYLAND_PREREQ_VERSION], 1.N.0) PASS FAIL --> Okay
> WAYLAND_PREREQ_VERSION="1.N.0" PASS PASS --> Incorrect
> WAYLAND_PREREQ_VERSION=1.N.0 PASS PASS --> Incorrect
> WAYLAND_PREREQ_VERSION=[1.N.0] PASS PASS --> Incorrect
> In all cases, I've referenced the variable as just
> WAYLAND_PREREQ_VERSION in the code. If I reference it as
> $WAYLAND_PREREQ_VERSION then autogen.sh errors indicating a blank string
> was substituted. E.g.:
> configure: error: Package requirements (wayland-server >= pixman-1 >= 0.25.2 xkbcommon >= 0.3.0) were not met:
> No package '>=' found
> No package '0.25.2' found
Hmm that doesn't sounds right.
The following simplified example works like a charm - change FOO_REQ
(or BAR version) to 0.20 and observe the result (expected failure).
And yes, the approach does work in for more complex configure.ac -
just tested xserver, mesa and libdrm.
$ cat Makefile.am
$ cat configure.ac
PKG_CHECK_MODULES(PCIACCESS, [pciaccess >= $FOO_REQ])
BAR="pciaccess >= 0.20"
dnl You can put the square brackets around $BAR. Personally I'm not a fan
> I'd tested a number of other variations prior to settling on the
> m4_define() syntax, which is why I'm leaning that direction - I just
> couldn't get anything else to work. So if anyone feels m4_define() to
> be the wrong way to do it, I'm happy to try another way but will need
> more specific direction.
Do you have the patch somewhere ? Without it no one can tell you
what's going wrong.
I'm leaning that there's a trivial mistake in it somewhere. Or perhaps
there's something fishy in the existing configure.ac ?
More information about the wayland-devel