On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 02:09:06PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Christophe Fergeau
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:26:18PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
> >> I'm going along with suggestion 3+, where spice-common is a submodule,
> >> not a library.
> >
> >
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Christophe Fergeau
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:26:18PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
>> I'm going along with suggestion 3+, where spice-common is a submodule,
>> not a library.
>
> Which doesn't prevent us from making it a library later on.
fyi, I started the c
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:26:18PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
> I'm going along with suggestion 3+, where spice-common is a submodule,
> not a library.
Which doesn't prevent us from making it a library later on.
Christophe
pgpUT2PIv8Ljy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
__
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 04:25:34PM +0300, Uri Lublin wrote:
> On 06/23/2011 02:10 PM, Alon Levy wrote:
> >On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:18:11PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
> >>On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 05:00:10PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
> >>>Hi All,
> >>
> >
> >Ok, so take three:
> >
> > (1) spice-protocol
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> We can't rely on distributions packaging, we want our tarballs to be easy
>> to use.
>> spice-protocol as is is small, and contains what is required by drivers,
>> agent,
>> activeX and xpi. So no reason to make it larger. Common wi
On 06/23/2011 02:10 PM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:18:11PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 05:00:10PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
Hi All,
Ok, so take three:
(1) spice-protocol - remains unchanged. specifically, despite the name, will
not contain the .proto
Hi,
We can't rely on distributions packaging, we want our tarballs to be easy to
use.
spice-protocol as is is small, and contains what is required by drivers, agent,
activeX and xpi. So no reason to make it larger. Common will contain what is
required
by the client and server.
Can also be
hi
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> For people who want to build for example the windows driver from source
> having to first install (and maybe even build, so as to be able to do
> make install) -common is a bit of a pain.
Would that be enough for windows users from sourc
On 06/23/2011 02:15 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
Hi
2011/6/23 Alon Levy:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 01:56:19PM +0200, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:18:11PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
(1) spice-protocol - remains unchanged. specifically, despite the name, will
not contain
Hi
2011/6/23 Alon Levy :
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 01:56:19PM +0200, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:18:11PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
>> > (1) spice-protocol - remains unchanged. specifically, despite the name,
>> > will
>> > not contain the .proto nor the python codegen
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 01:56:19PM +0200, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> > (6) spice-all - convenience repository that has the rest as submodules and
> > has a helpful makefile to build them all.
>
> Well, why not just use jhbuild? it does the job fine..
Though the moduleset might have bitrotten a
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 01:56:19PM +0200, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Alon Levy wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:18:11PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 05:00:10PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
> >> > Hi All,
> >>
> >
> > Ok, so take thre
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 01:10:01PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:18:11PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 05:00:10PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> >
>
> Ok, so take three:
>
> (1) spice-protocol - remains unchanged. specifically, despite the n
Hi
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Alon Levy wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:18:11PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 05:00:10PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
>> > Hi All,
>>
>
> Ok, so take three:
>
> (1) spice-protocol - remains unchanged. specifically, despite the name, will
Ok, so take three:
(1) spice-protocol - remains unchanged. specifically, despite the
name, will not contain the .proto nor the python codegen bits nor the
generated files.
(2) spice-common (repository spice/common) - new repository,
contains: spice*.proto spice_codegen.py and friends (python_mod
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:18:11PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 05:00:10PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
> > Hi All,
>
Ok, so take three:
(1) spice-protocol - remains unchanged. specifically, despite the name, will
not contain the .proto nor the python codegen bits nor the gene
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:28:31PM +0200, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:18:11PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 05:00:10PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> >
> > Ok, take two with Gerd's and Hans's and Uri's comments.
> >
> > (1) spice-protocol
Hi,
(1) spice-protocol - keep it, move code generation stuff here
(spice_codegen.py, python_modules, spice*.proto), and have the dist tarball
contain the cpp and c files resulting from running it.
Compile them into a small shared library?
(2) spice-server - new repo from spice/serv
Hi,
On 06/23/2011 12:18 PM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 05:00:10PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
Hi All,
Ok, take two with Gerd's and Hans's and Uri's comments.
(1) spice-protocol - keep it, move code generation stuff here
(spice_codegen.py, python_modules, spice*.proto), and have
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:18:11PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 05:00:10PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
> > Hi All,
>
> Ok, take two with Gerd's and Hans's and Uri's comments.
>
> (1) spice-protocol - keep it, move code generation stuff here
> (spice_codegen.py, python_modules,
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 05:00:10PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
> Hi All,
Ok, take two with Gerd's and Hans's and Uri's comments.
(1) spice-protocol - keep it, move code generation stuff here
(spice_codegen.py, python_modules, spice*.proto), and have the dist tarball
contain the cpp and c files res
Hi,
On 06/22/2011 08:01 PM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 08:14:57PM +0300, Uri Lublin wrote:
What will you do with other components that require spice-protocol,
such as spice-vdagent.
we will still package spice-protocol as an rpm, and if you want to build from
git
you would
Hi,
I assume this "libspice" will contain spice/common + spice-protocol? Or do
you envision the protocol bits to go elsewhere?
I like this idea more than merging keeping the current moduleset and
merging spice-gtk in spice, but I was under the impression that turning
common/ into a library wa
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 08:14:57PM +0300, Uri Lublin wrote:
> On 06/22/2011 06:00 PM, Alon Levy wrote:
> >Hi All,
> >
> > We currently have the following repositories:
> > spice-protocol
> > spice
> > spice-gtk
>
> also
> spice-vdagent (for both Windows and Linux)
> spice-xpi/acti
On 06/22/2011 06:00 PM, Alon Levy wrote:
Hi All,
We currently have the following repositories:
spice-protocol
spice
spice-gtk
also
spice-vdagent (for both Windows and Linux)
spice-xpi/active-x (as mentioned below)
spice-protocol contains the following parts:
qxl_de
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 05:00:10PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
>> Suggested changes:
>> spice - merge spice-protocol into it
>> spice-protocol - kill it
>> common - extract to a separate library, it's own configure, pkg-config
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 05:00:10PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
> Suggested changes:
> spice - merge spice-protocol into it
> spice-protocol - kill it
> common - extract to a separate library, it's own configure, pkg-config,
> name it spice-render,
>and have spice-gtk and spice (server
Hi All,
We currently have the following repositories:
spice-protocol
spice
spice-gtk
spice-protocol contains the following parts:
qxl_dev.h - required by qemu and drivers
controller.h - required by spice client and xpi/active-x
the rest - protocol definitions for server and client
28 matches
Mail list logo
