[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[PATCH] gnu: sdl-union: Wrap into a procedure and export it.

From: Alex Kost
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: sdl-union: Wrap into a procedure and export it.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 11:48:44 +0300
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)

Ludovic Courtès (2015-10-10 00:56 +0300) wrote:

> "Thompson, David" <address@hidden> skribis:
>> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Alex Kost <address@hidden> skribis:
>>>> I don't know if there is a better workaround for the SDL headers, but
>>>> this problem is rather common: there is a workaround in 'abbaye' and a
>>>> special patch for 'pingus'.
>>>> The problem is: the source code has lines like this:
>>>>   #include <SDL_mixer.h>
>>>> but the headers of all SDL packages are placed in “include/SDL/”
>>>> subdirectories.  And an upstream often doesn't use "pkg-config" for
>>>> every SDL package to define CFLAGS and assumes that all SDL headers are
>>>> placed in one directory.  So we have to invent workarounds for such
>>>> packages.
>>>> I just mention this problem here, perhaps someone will come up with a
>>>> general solution.
>>> Can’t ‘sdl-union’ be used here?  I think it was created specifically to
>>> solve this problem.  (Currently it’s private to (gnu packages sdl) but
>>> you can export it.)
>> Do you have any concerns about this package being picked up by UIs now
>> that it will be public?  Might confuse a user or two, dunno.
> No opinion.  If you think we’d rather keep it hidden, we can wrap it in
> a thunk for instance so that the UIs don’t pick it up.  WDYT?

I like it.  But since there are several sdl libraries, and not all of
them may be required, what about making it a procedure that takes sdl
packages instead? (the patch is attached)

Attachment: 0001-gnu-sdl-union-Wrap-into-a-procedure-and-export-it.patch
Description: Text Data

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]