Re: Comments from building 2.17.3

["Elijah Newren" <newren gmail com>]

On 12/5/06, Kjartan Maraas <kmaraas broadpark no> wrote:
> - dbus
>
> builds and installs but has anyone ever gotten this to work in a non
> system prefix and installed as a non-root user? Candidate for dropping
> in favour of the system installed one?

I believe I had it all working, yes.  But yes, it is a royal pain
(need to shutdown the system dbus somehow from gdm scripts, then make
sure the non-system installed one is running, all of which requires
root privileges and tracking down an ever-changing set of files to
modify).

I definitely think it's a candidate for dropping in favor of the
system installed one...but maybe we should wait another cycle or so
since dbus 1.0 was just barely released?

> - dbus-glib
>
> Tries to use the dbus that is installed in the jhbuild prefix and fails
> during make/make install because the daemon isn't running and there's
> nobody listening on the socket in the build prefix

Are you not using dbus-glib-build.patch?

> - dbus-python
>
> How on earth is this supposed to be built? No configure script, no
> Makefiles etc.

convert-to-tarballs doesn't make it into a distutils module type
instead of a tarball module type as needed.  Sorry, it's a shortcoming
of that script.  For now, just look at the previous modulesets and
modify dbus-python to look like them.  Better yet, we should modify
convert-to-tarballs.py to just copy
jhbuild/modulesets/freedesktop-2.18.modules and rename to
freedesktop-2.17.3.modules since it already has done this.

> - hal
>
> still using the 0.5.7.1 release and patching that when there's a newer
> 0.5.8.1 release out since september. Is this intentional? Can't we
> depend on the system installed one?

If someone has done the work to fix jhbuild to hack around the
problems of hal-0.5.8.1 not building nicely much like garnome did then
we can do so.  We're blocking on someone doing that work.

> - mozilla
>
> Do we still need to build this? Better to depend on the system provided
> firefox?

Well, the epiphany folk may not like being required to stick with old
versions of gecko, and as it stands right now no distro is going to
have a new enough gecko to build epiphany.  I agree that this would be
nice, but I'm not sure it's possible yet.  But yes, I also had a bunch
of problems building mozilla last I tried (a few months ago since I
have been buried in work on my dissertation).

> I'll send more if I encounter further problems.

Can you upload your moduleset to
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/teams/releng/?  Then I can build it can
check for problems too (I could generate a separate moduleset, but
then we aren't necessarily building and checking the same thing).

Thanks for working on this,
Elijah