On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 04:28:59PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > > > On 27 Jul 2017, at 16:04, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 03:29:11PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > >> > >>> On 27 Jul 2017, at 15:25, Frediano Ziglio <fziglio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Frediano Ziglio <fziglio@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> README | 2 +- > >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/README b/README > >>> index 45fbe89c..0fd6f071 100644 > >>> --- a/README > >>> +++ b/README > >>> @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ Or to install into a private user specific location > >>> The following mandatory dependencies are required in order to > >>> build SPICE > >>> > >>> - Spice protocol >= 0.9.0 > >>> + Spice protocol >= 0.12.13 > >> > >> What is the rationale for spice-protocol not being a submodule? > > > > It's used by multiple modules (spice-server, spice-gtk, the agent, the > > QX driver, ..) and has a stable API. > > And how does any of that not make it not a submodule? > > - Used by multiple modules: yes, that’s precisely what submodules are > for (that’s also the case for spice-common). That's also the use case for installed stuff that you look up through pkg-config. glib2 is used by multiple modules, but I see noone suggesting adding it a submodule. > - Has a stable API: yes, but when we need to change it, it would be > nice to have that the change recorded in git history of the modules > using it. We have a vague recording of that when you change the minimal required version of spice-protocol in configure.ac. > > For example, a lot of the streaming work requires a branched-off spice-protocol. > > I was also wondering about protocol updates being easier to do in a > consistent way if spice-protocol was “above” spice-server and > spice-gtk. Which could be solved by having a submodule structure like: > > spice > spice-protocol > spice-common > spice-server > spice-gtk I'm not sure generating spice-gtk and spice-server tarballs from such a layout would be easy (?) For what it's worth, I find submodules quite cumbersome to work with, they get in the way more often than not when you start making changes in one, when you start applying patches inside a submodule, rebasing, ... > > instead of the current: > > (nothing) Which is bad because? I believe what you are trying to improve is the case when an invasive change is being made in both spice-gtk and spice-server, with required changes in spice-protocol? If yes, I don't think anything would force people to have the over-arching spice/ module up to date, they could just work only in spice/spice-gtk, or in spice/spice-server, and you'd have the same issue as you currently are having, no? Christophe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel