Subject: Re: distcc-gtk (now depending on the original distcc)
To: Julio M. Merino Vidal <email@example.com>
From: Geert Hendrickx <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/14/2005 16:15:58
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 04:01:38PM +0200, Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 11:06 +0200, Geert Hendrickx wrote:
> > I have created a new distcc-gtk from scratch, which now depends on the
> > existing (unmodified) distcc and gtk2, and adds a GTK+ based monitor
> > called distccmon-gnome + an icon and .desktop file. No more CONFLICTS.
> > You can find the package in pkgsrc-wip/wip/distcc-gtk/ or on
> > http://lori.mine.nu:5190/pkgsrc/distcc-gtk-new.tgz .
> This is suboptimal because you are duplicating information in two
> packages that will be usually the same (and which should always be kept
> in sync). Think about bugfixes, for example.
> What I mean is that you should still modify distcc and split its
> Makefile in two parts (as you did before), trying to keep as many things
> as possible in the Makefile.common.
> Then, in distcc-gtk's Makefile, just define BUILD_TARGET and your custom
> do-install target. (I see you found an easy way to build only what you
> need :-)
> audio/libao* should be a good example.
Agreed. I'll split them up again. But then I will not be able to put
distcc-gtk in pkgsrc-wip anymore, as it will need the (not yet commited)
../../devel/distcc/Makefile.common. So I'll just post the .tgz.
> > One issue though: the resulting binary is installed as distccmon-gnome,
> > but I would prefer to name it distcc-gtk, as it doesn't require Gnome
> > (it can though, optionally, but that would become a third package then).
> > What should I do: leave the package as is, or install the binary as
> > distcc-gtk, and add some patches so that the icon and .desktop file use
> > the -gtk name as well?
> I think that renaming it to distcc-gtk is a good idea (gnome makes
> just no sense in the name if there really is no gnome support). This
> will let us add a possible future distcc-gnome package, if we want
> (something that should be trivial to do with a correct Makefile.common
> in place).
Ok, will do.
> Thanks for doing this!
Thanks for assisting! :-)