On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 05:27:08 -0700 Matthew Brush mbrush@codebrainz.ca wrote:
On 12-08-05 04:47 AM, Frank Lanitz wrote:
On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 10:21:04 +1000 Lex Trotman elextr@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 August 2012 03:40, Matthew Brush mbrush@codebrainz.ca wrote:
On 12-08-04 09:41 AM, Colomban Wendling wrote:
[...]
So... maybe I got your point wrong, but I don't think it's any kind of a problem to have different dependencies from one plugin to another -- actually, I think each plugin should set it dependencies to exactly what it needs: nothing less (of course), and nothing more.
You got it mostly. I just mean some way for the build system to handle multiple plugins sharing same dependencies like having webkit.m4 that enables/disables multiple plugins if not found. So when you configure, it says something like this:
checking for WebKit >= x.xx ... no Disabling plugins: WebHelper, Devhelp, Markdown
I don't see this, the *plugin* should define what it needs, not some arbitrary external build script. My (limited) understanding of the plugin autofoo is that is how its done now by having local build scripts in each plugin.
Yeah, and currently the plugins each check for the same shared dependencies, but it doesn't show what they're checking for, it just shows the plugin's name, like:
checking for DEVHELP ... noWhat I'm asking about is to have a webkit.m4 (for example) or something that the plugins which use that dependency can make use of and so the check is only done once and if not found, it ouputs as I said previously. Of course I don't know if it's realistic/feasible, which is why I was asking.
Sounds like a great idea. I support this wish.
If they require different versions that might mean you get Webhelper and Devhelp but not Markdown, but your scheme won't allow that. So if the Markdown dev added some new feature that needed a higher version I can't build the other two unless I upgrade my system :(
I mean they should require the same version, the same *lowest* version they can work with (even if they need some minor changes to make it possible).
Should but not have to. I agree.
We should not be forcing the *highest* version needed by plugins.
Not what I meant. But it's sort of what we do now if you consider building geany-plugins as a whole.
I agree. But I also see the point of consolidation of dependencies. Its getting really complicated to say geany-plugins needs this dependencies, but I think its an issue we need to solve on social level, not trying to solve it with some hack. Is there any chance to get a complete list which plugins depend on which library out of autotools?
What I was asking about wouldn't be a hack, it would just be to change the plugins a bit so they depend on the same version of shared libraries, and then to have Autotools do a check for the shared dependency.
Yes. It's mainly not a technical issue. Just some social issue where developers/maintainer have to talk to each other.
For a list of the dependencies, you can look through the `build` directory's .m4 files and manually extract them (like I did for some of the shared ones previously). The ones with the highest versions will be the "minimum version required" to build geany-plugins (as a whole).
Maybe building a script doing this would be a good idea.
Cheers, Frank