On 06/23/2011 02:15 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
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?
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.
Regards,
Hans
_______________________________________________
Spice-devel mailing list
Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
