On 1/16/13 6:08 AM, Peter Åstrand wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, DRC wrote: > >> On 1/16/13 3:12 AM, Peter Åstrand wrote: >>> Sure, but we don't have the details. It's not very useful to submit a >>> bug report that says "it fails on some machines but not mine" :-) >> >> Didn't I just supply the details? And a fix? > > Yes, a fix, but I don't understand on which machines this is failing, or > why.
(a) Does it matter? A simple examination of the patch reveals that it does the "right thing." If you set CMAKE_REQUIRED_LIBRARIES for the purposes of checking whether a function exists, you should *always* unset it afterwards. (b) OS X, and I don't know exactly why, and I don't exactly care. Probably because libpng isn't in /usr/lib on that platform. All I know is that it failed because the CMakeLists.txt file was not doing the right thing, and making it do the right thing fixed the failure. > Really, it's much better if you communicate with the FLTK upstream > directly. We have no special communication channels. No time to do so, and not my problem. >> Well, if you don't build FLTK with CMake, then why does the documented >> procedure for building FLTK (in BUILDING.txt) require CMake? > > I think this was my mistake. If I remember correctly, I assumed that we > were also building FLTK with CMake and didn't check this. One advantage > though is that it imposes fewer dependencies. For example, if you are > building on Windows, I suppose building with Autotools requires you to > install more packages(?). Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that you switch to autotools. We had that conversation years ago-- autotools is a non-starter for Windows builds. Requiring it as part of the TigerVNC build procedure will eliminate almost all Windows developers from your community. What I am suggesting is that you actually test what you recommend to the open source community. Had you ever tried to build FLTK with CMake on all of the platforms you purport to support, you would have discovered these issues yourselves. > I think it's unfortunate that FLTK is trying to support two different > build systems. My experience is that this never works. Accordingly, I > have opened up http://www.fltk.org/str.php?L2916 . > > Anyway, in the mean time, the question is if we should start building > FLTK with CMake, or if we should change the documentation to recommend > Autotools instead? When looking in the FLTK repository, it seems to me > that the CMake build system gets less attention than the Autotools one, > and is constantly lagging behind. For example, configure.in says we are > at FLTK 1.3.1, while CMakeLists.txt says 1.3.0. There are several bug > reports of that the CMake files are out of sync, for example > http://www.fltk.org/str.php?L2088 . > > My suggestion is therefore that we start recommending building FLTK with > Autotools instead. Ok with everyone? <sigh> No. Again, goes back to the "eat your own dog food" thing. If you ever actually tried to build TigerVNC on a real Windows platform, you would understand why most things you have done to make it easier on yourself as a Linux developer have made it harder on Windows developers. As far as "everyone", when was the last time anyone but me actually spoke up regarding one of these issues? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Master Java SE, Java EE, Eclipse, Spring, Hibernate, JavaScript, jQuery and much more. Keep your Java skills current with LearnJavaNow - 200+ hours of step-by-step video tutorials by Java experts. SALE $49.99 this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122612 _______________________________________________ Tigervnc-devel mailing list Tigervnc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tigervnc-devel
