Summary: | [GTK] Development builds should be possible without build-webkit | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | WebKit | Reporter: | Zan Dobersek <zan> | ||||
Component: | WebKitGTK | Assignee: | Zan Dobersek <zan> | ||||
Status: | RESOLVED WONTFIX | ||||||
Severity: | Normal | CC: | cgarcia, dbates, gustavo, mrobinson, webkit.review.bot | ||||
Priority: | P2 | Keywords: | Gtk | ||||
Version: | 528+ (Nightly build) | ||||||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||||||
OS: | Unspecified | ||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Zan Dobersek
2012-12-20 08:37:20 PST
There are currently at least two manual ways to perform the overriding of desired feature defines' release values: - creating feature-defines-overriding.txt file (normally created by build-webkit) and listing feature defines that are to be overridden - modifying the generated (more like copied) GNUmakefile.features.am by adjusting feature define values as desired But, as said, the listed methods are manual. Carlos and I brainstormed about this on IRC, eventually came to an idea of having an extra Perl script that would use the FeatureList.pm to get the development values for feature defines and work with those from there. Created attachment 180513 [details]
Patch
Comment on attachment 180513 [details]
Patch
The problem I see with the patch is that it duplicates the code, ideally we could leave the --enable-unstable-features and call that from build-webkit, but then we could not know whether we need to run autogen again or not. Since I'm probably the only dev affected by this, and I've recently switched to build-webkit, maybe we can just close this bug. What do you think?
(In reply to comment #4) > (From update of attachment 180513 [details]) > The problem I see with the patch is that it duplicates the code, ideally we could leave the --enable-unstable-features and call that from build-webkit, but then we could not know whether we need to run autogen again or not. Since I'm probably the only dev affected by this, and I've recently switched to build-webkit, maybe we can just close this bug. What do you think? I'm OK with closing this bug if it's not a problem for you anymore. If anyone else voices the desire for this functionality we can reopen it and get it polished. Closing for now, we can reopen it if anyone wants to be able to use this out-of-the-box. |