Bug 101813 – [GTK] add libsecret to jhbuild system

• Component: Platform
• Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE

[arno.]

Hi,
libsecret is now a dependency of Webkit.
But some linux distributions do not have libsecrets package (ubuntu 12.04 for example).
So, it would be nice to include libsecret in the jhbuild system.

[arno.]

Created attachment 173401 [details]
Patch

patch proposal

[Martin Robinson]

Typically we do not put dependencies that do not affect test result into the jhbuild. We aren't really using it as a mechanism to satisfy dependencies. Instead it's to ensure that when, for instance, only one specific version of Cairo produces perfect pixel results, we use that one. Making the jhbuild as light-weight as possible is useful, because it's a lot faster building the first time.

[Joone Hur]

(In reply to comment #2)
> Typically we do not put dependencies that do not affect test result into the jhbuild. We aren't really using it as a mechanism to satisfy dependencies. Instead it's to ensure that when, for instance, only one specific version of Cairo produces perfect pixel results, we use that one. Making the jhbuild as light-weight as possible is useful, because it's a lot faster building the first time.

I think we need a default jhbuild module file for WEBKIT_EXTRA_MODULES that allows us to build WebKitGtk+ more easily on any Linux distributions.

[Martin Robinson]

I'm not sure I understand. Isn't WEBKIT_EXTRA_MODULES a way to inject other modules into the WebKit jhbuild?

[Joone Hur]

(In reply to comment #4)
> I'm not sure I understand. Isn't WEBKIT_EXTRA_MODULES a way to inject other modules into the WebKit jhbuild?

Yes, but there is no an extra module file now so we can include an extra module file in order to add libsecret for satisfying dependencies.

[Philippe Normand]

I thought the plan was to instead make this dependency optional? There's even a bug about it, bug 101594

[Martin Robinson]

(In reply to comment #6)
> I thought the plan was to instead make this dependency optional? There's even a bug about it, bug 101594

We were waiting on that decision to see how much of a pain it is for people. I feel that if possible, we shouldn't make it optional since it's basic functionality.

[Gustavo Noronha (kov)]

I think that having a default extra module file goes against its purpose. I also think this should not be made optional. Do we have enough info to decide if this is painful enough now? =)

[Martin Robinson]

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 109195 ***