On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 03:35:09PM +0200, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote: > * r47575 > - There are plans for having cdebconf replacing debconf someday, this > means the gtk frontend should build against gtk/x11 too [1]. > Including more directfb private includes files goes the oppposite way, > so this change is wrong.
Attilio, the includes go with the function calls. Either you have both private dfb_* function calls and private directfb includes, or you have neither. You can't have it both ways! If you want it to build against GTK/X11, use ifdefs around both the includes and the function calls. Current cdebconf warns: /home/cjwatson/d-i/packages/cdebconf/src/modules/frontend/gtk/gtk.c: In function ‘gtk_go’: /home/cjwatson/d-i/packages/cdebconf/src/modules/frontend/gtk/gtk.c:1475: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘dfb_input_device_reload_keymap’ /home/cjwatson/d-i/packages/cdebconf/src/modules/frontend/gtk/gtk.c:1475: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘dfb_input_device_at’ ... and this is unambiguously a bug, no matter how it gets fixed. > - Text reformatting you performed to gtk.c makes it longer, althought > cleaner, so *less* readable. gtk.c has never really conformed to the cdebconf coding guidelines (doc/coding.txt; admittedly cdebconf in general is wildly inconsistent, but I'm trying to improve it gradually), and has got a lot worse recently. There is no reason to be obsessed with length; as a general rule programs are not easier to read just because they're shorter, and following a consistent style across the whole codebase generally makes programs more readable regardless of length. I support cleaning it up. A number of Jérémy's changes weren't consistent with the rest of cdebconf, though. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
