On 07/31/2011 07:35 PM, Mike Blumenkrantz wrote: > On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 19:32:46 -0400 > Christopher Michael<cpmicha...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> On 07/31/2011 07:29 PM, Mike Blumenkrantz wrote: >>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 19:16:35 -0400 >>> Christopher Michael<cpmicha...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 07/30/2011 06:36 PM, Boris Faure wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 01:10, Christopher Michael >>>>> <cpmicha...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> […] >>>>>> 2) It may not build on your system (tho it builds on all boxes I have >>>>>> tried so far). >>>>> >>>>> It doesn't build on my boxes (gentoo and arch linux up-to-date). >>>> I find that very strange since all of the initial development that I did >>>> was on a gentoo box. If I had to guess, I would say you are using >>>> ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~x86 to pull in masked packages...In which case, you are >>>> pulling in a development version of XCB and yes it will not build >>>> against that. >>>> >>>>> I've got xcb 1.7 and it introduced a split up of xcb-util. >>>>> I've attached a patch to make ecore_xcb compatible with xcb 1.7. >>>>> I haven't committed it since it would break your setup. >>>> While I appreciate the work/effort that went into your patch, I cannot >>>> put it in svn because that would break building for normal distros that >>>> use 'current' versions of xcb, not 'bleeding edge' versions. Most normal >>>> distros are still shipping 0.3.6 version of the XCB libraries. When they >>>> start shipping 0.3.8 by default, then I will gladly put this in svn, but >>>> until then, it Cannot go in because while it may fix building for your >>>> 'bleeding edge' setup, it breaks building for everyone else :( >>>> >>>> dh >>>> >>> IMO you may want to consider doing something like I have done with eeze and >>> libmount: provide 2 versions of the relevant files with autoconf detection >>> to determine which one actually gets compiled. This way you can support the >>> legacy (0.3.6) version as well as the current (0.3.8) version, and everyone >>> wins. >>> >> Yea, that's a thought...except that 0.3.6 is not legacy, it's the >> 'current' version :) 0.3.8 is a 'development' version :) >> >> dh >> > Unless they're coming out with 0.3.6.1, 0.3.6.2, 0.3.6.3, etc, 0.3.6 is > legacy :P > Well, call it whatever you want to. I am too damn tired to argue symantics. The point is, until standard distros start shipping 0.3.8 by default, then we have to build against 0.3.6. End of discussion.
dh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Got Input? Slashdot Needs You. Take our quick survey online. Come on, we don't ask for help often. Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek. http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey _______________________________________________ enlightenment-users mailing list enlightenment-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users
