On 4 December 2017 at 21:47, Daniel Stone <[email protected]> wrote: > Jussi, Tomek, Emil, > > On 18 August 2017 at 10:36, Quentin Glidic > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 8/18/17 11:30 AM, Quentin Glidic wrote: >>> Projects have been using various ways to check for the wayland-scanner, >>> mostly based on their developper own use case, and often not allowing >>> others use cases to work without a workaround. >>> >>> Hopefully this macro will support all use cases without needing user >>> action. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Quentin Glidic <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> >>> Everyone should test this macro for their own project and use cases. >>> Using the ${WAYLAND_SCANNER} variable should just work (assuming you have >>> the proper >>> wayland package built in the expected env). In very very rare cases, >>> setting the >>> WAYLAND_SCANNER variable as a ./configure argument may be needed, but >>> nothing else. >>> >>> Please let me know with enough details if your use case is not working >>> with it. > > Any comments on Quentin's suggestion here? Would they be enough for you? > I fear that the ship has sailed long time ago and there will be practically zero users of this.
AFAICT people have been stacking band-aid for years as opposed to addressing things properly. With key offender being Yocto and similar tools :-\ I'll refrain from commenting further on the topic, I doubt it's be too beneficial. My earlier ramblings can be found in the ML archives [1]. That said, if people are happy with the patch do go ahead. HTH Emil [1] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2017-March/147163.html https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2017-May/157116.html https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2017-May/157203.html _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
