On 06/16/2016 10:11 AM, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:02:24AM -0300, Eduardo Lima (Etrunko) wrote: >> On 06/16/2016 07:03 AM, Christophe Fergeau wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 04:35:14PM -0300, Eduardo Lima (Etrunko) wrote: >>>> Add a new 'have_lz4' variable to really tell if we have the dependency >>> >>> "Add a new 'HAVE_LZ4' automake conditional" >>> >>>> installed on the system. It will later be used in Makefile to decide >>>> whether or not the specific files related to LZ4 should be built. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Lima (Etrunko) <etrunko@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> m4/spice-deps.m4 | 12 ++++++++---- >>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/m4/spice-deps.m4 b/m4/spice-deps.m4 >>>> index 2e2fcf5..a114e4f 100644 >>>> --- a/m4/spice-deps.m4 >>>> +++ b/m4/spice-deps.m4 >>>> @@ -185,14 +185,18 @@ AC_DEFUN([SPICE_CHECK_LZ4], [ >>>> >>>> if test "x$enable_lz4" != "xno"; then >>>> PKG_CHECK_MODULES([LZ4], [liblz4], >>>> - [enable_lz4=yes >>>> + [have_lz4="yes" >>>> AC_DEFINE(USE_LZ4, [1], [Define to build with lz4 support]) >>>> ], >>>> - [if test "x$enable_lz4" = "xyes"; then >>>> - AC_MSG_ERROR([lz4 support requested but liblz4 could not be found]) >>>> - fi] >>>> + [have_lz4="no" >>>> + if test "x$enable_lz4" = "xyes"; then >>>> + AC_MSG_ERROR([lz4 support requested but liblz4 could not be found]) >>>> + fi] >>>> ) >>>> + else >>>> + have_lz4=no >>>> fi >>>> + AM_CONDITIONAL(HAVE_LZ4, test "x$have_lz4" = "xyes") >>>> ]) >>> >>> I think this whole change could just be: >>> >>> + AM_CONDITIONAL(HAVE_LZ4, test "x$enable_lz4" = "xyes") >>> >>> If you prefer to go with an additional have_lz4, I'd prefer to make it >>> closer to the SPICE_CHECK_SMARTCARD check for consistency reasons >>> (ie don't nest AC_DEFINE/AC_MSG_ERROR in PKG_CHECK_MODULES() but only >>> set have_lz4 in PKG_CHECK_MODULES() and do the rest after it). >> >> I prefer it this way too. I will follow the smartcard check. > > One big advantage of making it one line is that you then don't need any > changes to spice-gtk configure.ac output, avoiding Pavel's concerns. > It would be indeed a big advantage if we did not need it for both spice-gtk and spice server, but spice-gtk can live without that change for a while. By the way, what is the policy of updating the submodule? I thought whenever we updated it for one repository it should also be updated for the other one? > Christophe > -- Eduardo de Barros Lima (Etrunko) Software Engineer - RedHat etrunko@xxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel