On Thursday 14 February 2008 5:26:14 am Sergey Jin' Bostandzhyan wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 10:40:20PM -0500, Andres Mejia wrote: > > > Possibly an oldish one, but it shouldn't matter. Whether the kernel > > > supports inotify should be checked at runtime, not build time. > > > > Well, this makes sense. I could fix this for the build time. Does > > mediatomb already check for inotify during runtime? > > > > As far as fixing this for build time, I'm guessing the inotify-tools has > > this check only to serve the purpose of seeing if the linux inotify > > headers work, and if not, just drop back to it's own implementation. For > > mediatomb, we should just be worried about the presence and usability of > > sys/inotify.h. If it turns out there's a problem with the inotify > > headers, then it should be reported against the linux packages. > > We do the same fallback thing and use the same header as inotify tools, we > do have a runtime check, but I have to see what exactly it is doing (i.e., > possible that it will complain at startup and exit) > > So indeed, we should add an option which would allow compiling with inotify > support even if inotify is not present on the build system and do a smarter > runtime check. > > I'll see that we get this fixed for the upcoming release which should not > take long anymore. > > Thanks for the hints. > > Kind regards, > Jin
I see that this has been worked on in SVN. I'll test the new changes with the current package in Debian. -- Regards, Andres -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
