On 2 November 2014 23:30, Tanu Kaskinen <tanu.kaskinen at linux.intel.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2014-10-31 at 23:28 +0100, Peter Meerwald wrote: >> if bluez development files are not installed, compilation of the >> recently added native headset backend fails: >> >> CC modules/bluetooth/libbluez5_util_la-backend-native.lo >> modules/bluetooth/backend-native.c:36:33: fatal error: bluetooth/bluetooth.h: No such file or directory >> #include <bluetooth/bluetooth.h> >> >> this patch adds a check for bluez >= 4.101 >> >> Signed-off-by: Peter Meerwald <pmeerw at pmeerw.net> >> --- >> configure.ac | 4 ++++ >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac >> index f165eb4..6e45dc6 100644 >> --- a/configure.ac >> +++ b/configure.ac >> @@ -1046,6 +1046,10 @@ fi >> AS_IF([test "x$BLUETOOTH_HEADSET_BACKEND" != "xofono" && test "x$BLUETOOTH_HEADSET_BACKEND" != "xnull" && test "x$BLUETOOTH_HEADSET_BACKEND" != "xnative"], >> [AC_MSG_ERROR([*** Invalid Bluetooth Headset backend])]) >> >> +AS_IF([test "x$BLUETOOTH_HEADSET_BACKEND" = "xnative"], >> + [PKG_CHECK_MODULES(BLUEZ, [ bluez >= 4.101 ], [], >> + [AC_MSG_ERROR([*** BLUEZ library not found (required by native headset backend)])])]) >> + > > I think we shouldn't fail if the backend wasn't explicitly set by the > user. I'm not sure what the fallback should be... should we select the > ofono backend instead? Or null? I'd probably vote falling back to ofono. I thought we had native as the default already -- any reason that should change? -- Arun
