Merge lp://staging/~charlesk/libappindicator/lp-931764 into lp://staging/libappindicator/0.5

Proposed by Charles Kerr
Status: Merged
Approved by: Ted Gould
Approved revision: 231
Merged at revision: 231
Proposed branch: lp://staging/~charlesk/libappindicator/lp-931764
Merge into: lp://staging/libappindicator/0.5
Diff against target: 243 lines (+86/-85)
7 files modified
bindings/mono/Makefile.am (+3/-3)
bindings/mono/app-indicator.sources.xml (+0/-12)
bindings/mono/app-indicator.sources.xml.in (+12/-0)
bindings/python/Makefile.am (+4/-5)
bindings/python/appindicator.override (+0/-65)
bindings/python/appindicator.override.in (+65/-0)
configure.ac (+2/-0)
To merge this branch: bzr merge lp://staging/~charlesk/libappindicator/lp-931764
Reviewer Review Type Date Requested Status
Ted Gould (community) Approve
Review via email: mp+96277@code.staging.launchpad.net
To post a comment you must log in.
Revision history for this message
Charles Kerr (charlesk) wrote :

Okay well this was a fun ride. In short, the problem is that the mono and python bindings' automake process was not written for cases where the srcdir and builddir are different.

When building the language bindings for mono and python, both have input files that refer to other files in the build by path. These paths break when you change the srcdir, so I've replaced the input files with template files (ie, foo.sources.xml was replaced with foo.sources.xml.in). That way, input files containing the correct paths can be generated from the templates when the configure script is run.

There were a couple of places in the python and mono directories' Makefile.am files that made similar assumptions about builddir and srcdir. These were also tweaked.

Revision history for this message
Charles Kerr (charlesk) wrote :

Also very important, I need to give credit to Allan. He and I worked tag-team on bug 931764 and bug 931759 for about 7 hours today because once we would figure out & fix one build error, a new one would show up to take its place further down the build path. :)

Revision history for this message
Ted Gould (ted) wrote :

Hmm, have no clue why make distcheck passed then. But, I don't care, these changes look good.

Only thing is that when I merge them I'm going to change the layout a bit. It should be done using bzr mv instead of deleting the files and adding new ones. Since Bazaar has strong file IDs this means that if other people had branches modifying these files in some other way Bazaar could resolve the conflicts. If there's no shared history it can't do that.

review: Approve
Revision history for this message
Charles Kerr (charlesk) wrote :

> It should be done using bzr mv instead of deleting the files and adding new ones.

Good catch; thanks :)

Preview Diff

[H/L] Next/Prev Comment, [J/K] Next/Prev File, [N/P] Next/Prev Hunk
The diff is not available at this time. You can reload the page or download it.

Subscribers

People subscribed via source and target branches