Hi 2011/6/23 Alon Levy <al...@redhat.com>: > 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 bits nor the generated >> > files. >> >> I fail to see why that couldn't be part of a spice-common/protocol >> subdirectory, and shipped as a seperate devel package by >> distributions. But I didn't read all the conversation. Can you briefly >> give the rationale of the changes in your upcoming propositions? > > 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.
Yes, it's already having 4 very different things... so it should be split even more according to you. If not, then please, think twice that it wouldn't make life more difficult to have common and those headers in a single place. if a package installs: /usr/include/spice/drivers/* /usr/include/spice/agent/* /usr/include/spice/controller/* /usr/include/spice/protocol/* + with the various corresponding .pc They are usually smart enough to split it in various -devel packages. If not, it's really not a big deal.. or is it? (and that could be from spice-common or even spice-server) -- Marc-André Lureau _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
