On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri <barbi...@profusion.mobi> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Cedric BAIL <cedric.b...@free.fr> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri >> <barbi...@profusion.mobi> wrote: >> > EFL single tree is almost ready, now just missing Ethumb and Emotion, >> which >> > should come easily and maybe I can finish them next week. >> >> I have been thinking that maybe we should be able to do elementary in >> fact now. As we have to webkit/efl backend, maybe we can move that >> code out to a module API and compile them outside of efl tree. It >> would also help by reducing the size of the thing to load at start >> time and defer it until the application use an elm_web one. >> > > This one looks like a good hack. But I wonder how long it will take before > we find another case like that. Problem is that EFL is meant to be lean... > and Elementary to be a very high-level umbrella, it is expected to have > stuff in its dependencies that will be outside of EFL, maybe they are big > as webkit.
> with Eo we could move elm_web as a widget outside of elementary, people > would have to pkg-config elementary-web. I'd be more in favor of this than > the other way around. I would also, the only problem is that we need to preserve elm_web due to API/ABI stability rules. That's why I did propose this little hack. >> I need your help to review the warnings and remove them. Some libraries >> > didn't use to build with all warnings on, and now they do. Some are bit >> > annoying but can be fixed easily such as "parameter not used". Some need >> > more care in order to avoid breakages during the fixes (shadow warnings, >> if >> > you rename the inner variable and forget to replace every place, you'll >> get >> > rid of the warning but will have a bug! be careful!) >> >> Good point, we should kill this warning. I guess I will not be able to >> help you during this week, but maybe next week. At least I will put >> that on my todo. >> >> > Also tests were forced into distcheck as they should be. But we need to >> fix >> > tests in multiple fronts: >> > - make them pass (some evas tests are not passing!) >> > - make them silent (some tests wisely trigger error conditions, causing >> > EINA_SAFETY or ENA_MAGIC or EINA_LOG to kick in and be loud. In these >> cases >> > we must replace eina_log print callback and check if the error was >> issued, >> > failing if not, hiding the message if it pass) >> >> Same here. >> >> > Eina used to do that for all tests, but now we have some for binshare and >> > the eina magic, simple xml and eina value timeval are wrong. The eina >> > timeval test is also bad, because it doesn't use CHECK's string >> comparison >> > test and the error message is quite useless: strcmp(str, "...") == 0. >> where >> > it could print both strings. >> >> What is the current score of eina and eet coverage ratio ? I remember >> that we are lacking a lot of test there, but maybe it did evolve in >> the past months since I last checked. >> > > are you crazy? did you ever see coverage ration improving out of nowhere? I > bet it decreased :-( I was hoping that for Christmas some goblin would have taken care of that :-( -- Cedric BAIL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Master SQL Server Development, Administration, T-SQL, SSAS, SSIS, SSRS and more. Get SQL Server skills now (including 2012) with LearnDevNow - 200+ hours of step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. SALE $99.99 this month only - learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122512 _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
