On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Lukas Oboril <oboril.lukas at gmail.com> wrote: > Mark > > my coments are inline > > On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Mark Wright <markwright at internode.on.net> > wrote: >> >> Hi Luc, Ade and Stefan, >> >> I emailed this to the list, but its being held for moderator >> approval as its too large. So personal email while the >> list catches up.
>> >> Hi, >> >> Stefan has backported HAL to Solaris 10u5, which >> I think is awesome. >> >> I've attached some diffs to compile and package >> Stefan's port of HAL to Solaris 10u5. Currently >> there are some manual steps to compile it, so >> its not quite ready yet, the status is: >> >> (1) When packaging HAL, I do not know where to put: >> >> /usr/etc/dbus-1/hal.conf > > > Should be /etc/dbus-1/hal.conf Yes if we are using Nevada DBUS. No if we are using FOSS DBUS (we can't write to /etc). >> (2) The make goes into an infinite loop when it >> tries to build po. I worked around it by the >> follwing in configure.sh >> >> # make in po goes into an infinite loop on my box, disable >> # it for the moment to workaround this, since I do not know >> # why it is looping. Also that is the only reason I added >> # --disable-man-pages --disable-gtk-doc. >> $KBE_PREFIX/bin/sed -i -e "s/ po //" Makefile >> $KBE_PREFIX/bin/sed -i -e "s/ docprivileges//" Makefile >> >> Of course that has the dis-advantage of no man pages or >> documentation currently. >> >> (3) Currently it fails building FOSShal with FOSSdbus, >> as foss is missing dbus-glib-1, the error is: >> >> No package 'dbus-glib-1' found > > > dbus-glib is in dude, but I do not put there pspc, because it doesn't build > on my machine I checked in some patches this weekend for the DBUS Introspect generation. It should build now. >> I guess we could add dbus-glib-1 to foss for when stock >> Solaris 10u5 gnome 2.6 is used. I can not test it with >> Solaris 10u5 gnome 2.6 though, as I trashed gnome 2.6 >> from my machine. Also I am not sure which dbus-glib-1 >> to add. Well apart from the idea of bumping foss glib2 and >> dbus to the versions that JDS gnome 2.22, and adding >> the corresponding dbus-glib, the JDS gnome 2.22 versions are: >> >> glib2 2.16.3 >> dbus 1.2.1 >> dbus-glib 0.74 This is actually a good question. What happens when someone removes GNOME from their Solaris or Nevada, and we still have dependencies on glib-2.0. >> (5) I tried to tweak things though so that if >> SUNWgnome-base-libs and SUNWdbus are not installed, then >> it tries to compile it as FOSShal. However it does not >> quite compile at present like that due to (3). > > > No, we have FOSSglib (glib-2.12.12) and FOSSdbus (or SUNWdbus o Nevada) for > that > > >> >> (6) I had to add libfstyp from OpenSolaris as FOSSlibfstyp, >> since it is missing from Solaris 10u5 (or at least it is >> from my box, it is not in SUNWhea which is installed). > > > ??? Stefan ? Yeah. This one is in Nevada, but not S10. It's easy to compile it on S10, but it's part of ON. I don't know how to go about it. ;-) >> (8) Some stuff to change /bin/sh to /bin/bash, which >> is only required if libtool 2.2.4 was used. It >> would probably not hurt with libtool 1.5.X, but >> I haven't tested it. Anyway, if you don't want >> those change I can svn revert them. I've compiled FOSS >> up to and including FOSSlibshout with libtool 2.2.4, >> but we would probably like to pretend that libtool >> doesn't exist, so can understand if you want to >> stay with the hacked libtool 1.5.X for most stuff. >> If I hit any libtool issues though probably the first >> thing I will try is libtool 2.2.4. Its requirement for >> /bin/bash is kind of annoying. It is annoying, but please keep in mind that all the auto* tools, and libtool itself, are in fact written for bash, and not /bin/sh. > this is the reason, why I would not use libtool 2.2.4 globaly. Stefan, Ade > what do you think. Do you would using libtool 2.2.4 ? It is simple put > libtool 2.2.4 into KBE, harder way is migrate out hacked libtool 1.5 > transform to 'our hacked' libtool 2.2.4 I'm not against upgrading to libtool 2.2.4, if it is indeed better. I do know that libltdl 2.2.2 is better than the 1.5.x versions -- as much as i would like to avoid using libltdl, but in some cases it is simply not possible. So, i guess we need a vote on upgrading libtool to 2.2.4. --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman KDE e.V. stefan.teleman at gmail.com
