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

Re: Vala programs and compiling from source



>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > > I recently submitting Deja-dup, a backup program written in Vala for
>> > > > review at
>> > > >
>> > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=540761
>> > > >
>> > > > Vala is described in more detail at http://live.gnome.org/Vala. Deja-dup
>> > > > like many Vala programs include both the Vala source code and the C
>> > > > "source code" to avoid a build time requirement of Vala and also because
>> > > > Vala is still in a rapidly evolving stage.  Do I need to build from the
>> > > > original Vala source code or can I consider the machine generated C as
>> > > > "source"?
>> > >
>> > You should be building from the vala source.
>> >
>> > > For rygel to date I've used the C as "source" unless I've needed to
>> > > patch a bug or build issue with it when you then need to regenerate
>> > > it.
>> > >
>> > Sounds like rygel should as well.
>>
>> That won't work. The upstream uses Vala git, which didn't allow
>> recompiling rygel from the version of Vala in Fedora.
>>
> So this is interesting.  Alternatives that I see here:
>
> * Build rygel from the generated C
> * Build vala from a snapshot so it can be used to build rygel
> * Drop rygel from Fedora until we can build from source.
>
> There's limited precedent for all of these.  We've shipped packages
> where C source had been precompiled from yacc, for instance.  The question
> is whether that was a bug to be addressed when we find it happening or
> something we want to accept as okay.
>
>> > When in doubt, build from the source that upstream is going to be modifying,
>> > fixing bugs in directly, etc.
>>
>> When in doubt, use the sources that upstream is providing as the sources
>> to build from, in this case the C files rather than the Vala ones (even
>> if both are actually in the tarball).
>>
> This is plainly an insufficient definition.  For instance, mono packages
> sometimes ship with .dll files that their build scripts rely on "linking"
> into the build.  Those are not source no matter what upstream's build
> requires.

Some what different in that vala is source code that generates plainly
readable C code. A .dll is a binary library. Its not exactly the same
arguement.

Peter


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