On 23 February 2015 at 19:20, Bill Spitzak <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/22/2015 11:52 PM, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > >>> I'll give Bill and Daniels a chance to comment, but meanwhile: >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Bryce Harrington <[email protected]> > > > My only concern is that trying to build Wayland from scratch on a machine > that does not already have wayland-scanner installed using a single "make" > will work. Or, at worst, the error produced makes it obvious what has to be > done to fix it. > I'm a little confused there - what exactly do you mean with "wayland-scanner installed" ? Is that having (a) the binary, wayland-scanner.pc & friends around, or (b) just the binary ?
If (a) what is the benefit of bailing(error) out when wayland-scanner.pc is missing, despite it being unused ? I'm missing something here :-( > I wanted to make sure the original patch in the patchwork is still the one > being considered. Otherwise this is easy to test. Fwiw I'm all for "check wayland-scanner first and fallback to AC_..." but others prefer the other way around (sorry to repeat myself so much). -Emil _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
