Hi, I have a RHEV 3.3 environment but I run 3.17.4-1-ARCH on my work station
and would like to access the RHEV spice server on the VM's, I have also tried
with openSuSE but I never get the expected "Spice window frame" that I would
get if I used a RHEL system with the spice-xpi. The spice fra
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Victor Toso wrote:
> I usually install it in may $HOME/dev, yes.
> The problem with DESTDIR is with the pkg-config files.
> I would compile it without the prefix so the pkg-config files would have the
> default prefix set (prefix=/usr/local) installed in another pl
Hey,
> Hmm, is this going to work?
> $ pkg-config polkit-gobject-1 --variable=policydir
> /usr/share/polkit-1/actions/
>
> Prepending /usr isn't good.
>
> If you want to install out of prefix, you should consider DESTDIR=/tmp/foo
> make install
I usually install it in may $HOME/dev, yes.
The pr
Hi
- Original Message -
> ---
> configure.ac | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
> index b55f3a0..c150e2f 100644
> --- a/configure.ac
> +++ b/configure.ac
> @@ -449,7 +449,7 @@ if test "x$have_usbredir" = "xyes" && test
> "
---
configure.ac | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
index b55f3a0..c150e2f 100644
--- a/configure.ac
+++ b/configure.ac
@@ -449,7 +449,7 @@ if test "x$have_usbredir" = "xyes" && test
"x$enable_polkit" != "xno"; then
AC_DEFINE([USE_
On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 23:08 +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Jonathon Jongsma wrote:
> > For what it's worth, I basically agree with Christophe and Jeremy.
> > (Although I think that describing it as "mandatory code review" is
> > over-stating the case a bit -- th
Hey,
On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 10:06:13AM -0600, Jonathon Jongsma wrote:
> Hrm, after trawling the patchwork mailing list archives, it appears that
> it's not actually possible to change the patch state via email. The
> authors consider this to be insecure since anybody could change the
> review sta
On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 04:25:24PM +0100, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 03:37:32PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> > So much of this is quite irrelevant to the discussion at hand about
> > unreviewed commit rule.
>
> I know this is about a lot of stuff, libvirt HACKING fine
goes to 2 lists for post-review, and I would prefer people stick to
technical conversations rather than community guidelines when there is
no need for it and it doesn't noticeably improve the project for the
rest of the people outside this very tiny contributor community.
Now this is a place whe
On Sat, 2014-12-06 at 00:14 +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
> On 12/06/2014 12:00 AM, Jonathon Jongsma wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 23:41 +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >>>
> >>> At the same time, I'm not sure mailing lists are the right tool for code
> >>> review. It's difficult to track which
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> Well, in this case, most people in this thread agreed the patch was not
> trivial. Since you felt differently about it and thought it was eligible
> to being pushed without review, I think these rules should give some
> guidelines in the
On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 04:34:18PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Christophe Fergeau
> wrote:
> > « **if a recently committed patch** breaks compilation on a platform or
> > for a given driver, then it's fine to commit a **minimal** fix directly
> > without gett
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> « **if a recently committed patch** breaks compilation on a platform or
> for a given driver, then it's fine to commit a **minimal** fix directly
> without getting the review feedback first »
What is minimal? The resulting file is a doze
On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 03:37:32PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> So much of this is quite irrelevant to the discussion at hand about
> unreviewed commit rule.
I know this is about a lot of stuff, libvirt HACKING fine had plenty of
interesting things, so I thought why not keep them. I don't min
So much of this is quite irrelevant to the discussion at hand about
unreviewed commit rule.
We already have a cooding style:
http://www.spice-space.org/docs/spice_style.pdf although as always,
it's arguable and we haven't been following too strictly (thankfully)
In general I don't think we need t
On 12/08/2014 02:53 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Uri Lublin wrote:
With current workflow, you have no guaratee that unreviewed patch go
there by mistake or maliciously. We would need a tool for that.
For me this is the job of maintainer to quickly review each com
This is libvirt's HACKING file with some parts not relevant to SPICE
removed. It contains some git advice, some C coding style rules, and
an attempt at defining what a trivial patch is.
---
Hey,
After the latest thread about trivial patches, I realized that libvirt actually
has a definition of wha
On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 01:53:43PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> This contradicts a bit the fact that you can do commit without review.
>
> I said "quickly", doing thorough review of all commits before a
> release is not doable. But it is the role of the maintainer to check
> all the commits
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Uri Lublin wrote:
>> With current workflow, you have no guaratee that unreviewed patch go
>> there by mistake or maliciously. We would need a tool for that.
>> For me this is the job of maintainer to quickly review each commit
>> before release.
>
>
> I disagree.
>
On 12/05/2014 05:52 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 03:57:29PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
The blame will be anyway on the one who
typed it forever.
I have absolutely no interest in blaming people after the fac
On 12/06/2014 04:04 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Jonathon Jongsma wrote:
For what it's worth, I basically agree with Christophe and Jeremy.
I agree with Marc-André here.
I too agree with Marc-Andre abou
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 03:49:55PM -0600, Jonathon Jongsma wrote:
> I don't have strong opinions on moving these checks into macros (or the
> following patches that extract additional macros), but
> - Do they really need to all be in their own files? From a readability
> point of view, I think it'
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 07:18:50PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> Where did you see that all patches have to be mandatorily reviewed in
> Spice? We always had a trivial push rule, and you always complained
> about it. That's all I know.
What I remember from my first few years in SPICE was that
23 matches
Mail list logo
