Re: gnome account for libvtemm

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 14:12 +0100, Krzesimir Nowak wrote:
> 2009/3/13 Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>:
> > On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 01:11 +0100, Krzesimir Nowak wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I have almost finished wrapping vte 0.16 and 0.17 versions (tarballs
> >> available at [1])and I have several questions:
> >
> > Well done. Is there any reason that you have not used the normal
> > directory structure for *mm modules?
> >
> 
> Mostly because of testing.
> 
> 1. I wanted to test if it could be build by using standard autotools -
> I mean by executing `autoreconf && ./configure && make && make
> install', without autogen.sh. And ideally with no warnings from
> automake, but it is daydreaming and I didn't do anything in this case.
> 
> 2. I was curious if maintainer mode is really needed. What's the point
> having it?

It prevents the source code from being generated when building from a
tarball. That should never be necessary, and it involves extra
dependencies which would annoy distro packagers.

I have not looked at your build structure in detail. If it offers
obvious benefits then keep it. Otherwise, I suggest being consistent
with the other modules.

> 
> 3. I wanted to test if my build system will pass `make distcheck' with
> having a generated file patched for some reason (well, I had one
> reason, until I discovered a no_default_handler clause in
> _WRAP_SIGNAL...). Standard build system didn't pass this case, so I
> tried to use a BUILT_SOURCES feature. It still doesn't work though.
> 
> 4. I just wondered if there is a way to make it simple to reuse,
> without having to rename a lot of content in files. In the end I
> thought of making a build system, which, in simpler cases, needed
> changes only in configure.ac and Makefiles having a list of files, but
> file names are problematic.
> 
> 5. I was wondering if livbvtemmconfig.h is needed/used. For now, I
> thrown that out.
> 
> 6. I had a feeling that standard build system is bit rusty and it
> needed a sort of review and some fixes (like --enable-use-deprecations
> case or little fix in checking for GNU m4 [caret before `GNU' and
> space after `4' should be removed, because m4 --version have `GNU m4'
> phrase inside parentheses in the middle of the line.])
> 
> But I still have normal directory structure somewhere on drive, so if
> my build system is unacceptable, returning to standard one is matter
> of copying more recent source codes from one build system to another.
> 
> >> 1. Bugzilla showed that vte is a part of desktop category, so it is
> >> good to assume it is part of GNOME? If so, should a Vte namespace be
> >> inside Gnome namespace?
> >
> > I would do that, yes.
> >
> >> 2. Is it a good idea to request an account on gnome.org for libvtemm?
> >> Then it would be a part of gnomemm.
> >
> > Yes, please. Here are instructions:
> > http://live.gnome.org/NewAccounts
> >
> > It's the gnomemm module that you want access for. Please ask me if
> > anything is unclear.
> >
> 
> Thanks, I'll do it when I finish the Gnome namespace thing.
> 
> > --
> > murrayc murrayc com
> > www.murrayc.com
> > www.openismus.com
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> gtkmm-list mailing list
> gtkmm-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
-- 
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com