Just make sure you email jds-review if the maintainer refuses to make this change.
Thanks, Laca On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 12:53 +0800, C Wang wrote: > Brian: > As Simon mentioned, our current strategy is not to deliver > libglibmm_generate_extra_def.so, so for gtkmm, we have to avoid to build > it. We'll remove the patch definitely if we can get support from the > module owner. > > Chris > > simon.zheng at sun.com ??????: > > Brian, > > > > This patch is a short-term solution for Indiana. > > > > The library libglibmm_generate_extra_defs-2.4.so is built once in whole > > stack. It's built in glibmm. And then glibmm and gtkmm use this library > > to generate their own executable "generate_extra_defs". > > > > Now our solution is glibmm and gtkmm don't build or deliver anything > > about it. Anyway, we'll raise this issue to module maintainer. Once they > > agree with removal from tarball, we'll delete this patch. > > > > Thanks, > > -Simon > > > > > > Brian Cameron wrote: > > > >> Chris: > >> > >> > >> > >>> /usr/lib/libglibmm_generate_extra_defs-2.4.so delivered by glibmm is > >>> library is used to generate signals.defs and properties.defs. But gtkmm > >>> has directly delivered these two defs in tarball. > >>> > >>> ARC member has questioned the stability of this interface, and after > >>> some long discussion, we have decided not to ship the interface. > >>> > >>> > >> Here was Danek's comment that I think led to this change. Refer to > >> email message from Danek dated "02/12/08 11:10" in the case's mail log. > >> > >> > >> > >>>>> Danek Duvall says: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> Simon Zheng says: > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Danek Duvall says: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>> Is generate_extra_defs something you'd put in a makefile to run over > >>>>> the .hg and .ccg files to generate a .defs file? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> No, generate_extra_defs isn't put into any makefile. Usually > >>>> generate_extra_defs is run manually by the developer to generate new > >>>> .defs file, and then put these pre-generated .defs file into source > >>>> repository. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Sort of like checking .o files into the repository? Why don't > >>> developers simply keep the source checked in, and all derived files > >>> built via the build system? > >>> > >>> > >> Based on this comment I get the impression that Danek is suggesting > >> that the files *not* be delivered with the tarball if they are > >> autogenerated. I don't think he was suggesting that we avoid > >> building the files. > >> > >> I think he was suggesting we raise this issue with the module > >> maintainer and find out the best way to fix this problem. > >> > >> Brian > >> > >> > > > > >
