[Dev] [X/Wayland] RPM Macros for conditional build with X, Wayland, both (and none!)

Fu Michael michael.fu at linux.intel.com
Tue Dec 10 09:50:56 GMT 2013

On 12/9/2013 9:50 PM, Dominig ar Foll wrote:
> Le 09/12/2013 08:31, Zhao, Juan J a écrit :
>> Yes, some packages were modified to add wayland support to avoid unnecessary X building-requirement.
>> A X-Free repo(devel:wayland:Mobile) was set up, libX11 like packages were removed. And we are still on the road to influence the efforts to clean up the code in wayland condition. Also we developed a tool who can warn out the X related APIs and provide the API backtrace info.
>> About your question for {with wayland} and {without x} macro. The background is like this:
>> This flag is defined in X-Free repo only. Using this macro is to protect IVI to avoid the applications bugs who have direct dependencies on X APIs. And there is no influence for mobile with X and current IVI totally. In the future, we can still add that macro to resolve this issue.
> The main issue that I see in accepting a {without x} macro, is the risk
> induced by the lack of clear directive about the various possible
> combinations.
> The Stéphane's proposition, presents the main advantage to assume no
> default. It does cover the cases which are used in Tizen :
>   - X
>   - Wayland with X backward compatibility
>   - Wayland only (without X compatibility)
> It's in my view far preferable.

I share the same opinion. I think it's a reasonable alignment among 
profiles regarding these macro usage.

More information about the Dev mailing list