Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] libxl: add support for yajl 2.x

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 11:59 +0000, Roger Pau Monnà wrote:
> 2012/1/23 Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 11:30 +0000, Roger Pau Monnà wrote:
> >> 2012/1/23 Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> >> > On Tue, 2012-01-03 at 18:00 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> >> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] libxl: add support for 
> >> >> yajl 2.x"):
> >> >> > On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 16:41 +0000, Roger Pau Monnà wrote:
> >> >> > > Some autogoo stuff will be good, at least for the tools build. Can 
> >> >> > > you
> >> >> > > set up the basic structure Ian?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm not going to have time in the near future.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Would it be sufficient to have the stuff in tools/check create a
> >> >> > config.h as well as doing the checks? Might need a bit of Makefile 
> >> >> > magic
> >> >> > to be sure that check is always run?
> >> >>
> >> >> For now, I think we should not add more stuff to the critical path for
> >> >> Xen 4.2.  But after then we should switch to autoconf I think.  (I
> >> >> don't approve of automake.)
> >> >
> >> > It seems that yajl 2.0 support is blocked on the autoconf stuff. Can we
> >> > disentangle things such that we can support yajl 2.0 in Xen 4.2 and
> >> > switch to autoconf afterwards or do we have/want to make the switch to
> >> > autoconf for 4.2?
> >>
> >> The proposed autoconf patch is just a convenient replacement for
> >> tools/check scripts, which allows us to generate a makefile and a
> >> header we can include to know the system capabilities, nothing more
> >> was added.
> >>
> >> > I appreciate the concerns about critical path for 4.2. I presume
> >> > autoconf would require more than just checking in the patches,
> >> > specifically I'm thinking of the automated test system update and docs.
> >>
> >> Don't know how difficult it is to update the test bed to use the new
> >> configure script, ideally it should only require adding "./configure"
> >> before performing a "make tools". Since I don't know how the test bed
> >> works, it might be necessary to pass some options to configure
> >> execution to obtain the same result.
> >
> > Ian J would have to answer that one. Hopefully just running ./configure
> > will get us as close as possible to the existing setup.
> >
> > FWIW the tester code is available at a git url which is in every posted
> > set of results. Probably looking for anywhere that writes to .config
> > would be a good start for deciding how far from the defaults it deviates
> > (not far, I expect).
> >
> >> > On the other hand Roger posted v3 of his autoconf support patch and
> >> > although I haven't got round to reviewing it yet (sorry) v2's review was
> >> > generally positive/minor looking.
> >>
> >> v3 is basically a v2 with all the mentioned fixes and the output from
> >> autoconf & automake, so we can use the configure script straight away.
> >
> > automake? I thought we agreed not to use that?
> 
> Autotools in general is quite a mess, we don't use automake, but we
> need it to generate config.sub and config.guess (yes, I know I can
> also copy them). That's all we need automake for (don't know why
> autoconf can't do this automatically...)

As IanJ (I think) said we should just copy and commit them.

> >> Anyway, this patch for adding support of yajl 2.0 needs some rework,
> >> according to the comments made by Ian Jackson, which I will try to do
> >> before the end of the week (sorry for the delay, but I'm quite busy
> >> this days).
> >
> > Sure, no problem. I have put yajl2 support in the "nice to have column"
> > and autoconf in a new "need to decide if this is 4.2 or 4.3 material"
> > column.
> 
> Thanks, I'm sure yajl 2.0 support will get into 4.2 :)



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel