RESOLVED WONTFIX106451
[jhbuild] Unify the implementation of run-with-jhbuild. 
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106451
Summary [jhbuild] Unify the implementation of run-with-jhbuild.
Raphael Kubo da Costa (:rakuco)
Reported 2013-01-09 06:49:07 PST
[jhbuild] Unify the implementation of run-with-jhbuild.
Attachments
Patch (12.87 KB, patch)
2013-01-09 06:51 PST, Raphael Kubo da Costa (:rakuco) 		no flags
DetailsFormatted DiffDiff
Patch (13.02 KB, patch)
2013-01-10 05:35 PST, Raphael Kubo da Costa (:rakuco) 		no flags
DetailsFormatted DiffDiff
Show Obsolete (2) View All Add attachment proposed patch, testcase, etc.
Raphael Kubo da Costa (:rakuco)
Comment 1 2013-01-09 06:51:40 PST
Created attachment 181917 [details] Patch
kov's GTK+ EWS bot
Comment 2 2013-01-09 07:37:17 PST
Comment on attachment 181917 [details] Patch Attachment 181917 [details] did not pass gtk-ews (gtk): Output: http://queues.webkit.org/results/15756613
EFL EWS Bot
Comment 3 2013-01-09 08:10:13 PST
Comment on attachment 181917 [details] Patch Attachment 181917 [details] did not pass efl-ews (efl): Output: http://queues.webkit.org/results/15761518
Laszlo Gombos
Comment 4 2013-01-09 14:15:37 PST
The direction make sense to me but the patch in it current form seems to break both the efl and gtk port builds.
Martin Robinson
Comment 5 2013-01-09 14:18:08 PST
I wonder if it makes sense just to remove run-with-jhbuild in favor of jhbuild-wrapper run ?
Raphael Kubo da Costa (:rakuco)
Comment 6 2013-01-10 05:35:31 PST
Created attachment 182120 [details] Patch
EFL EWS Bot
Comment 7 2013-01-10 05:44:10 PST
Comment on attachment 182120 [details] Patch Attachment 182120 [details] did not pass efl-ews (efl): Output: http://queues.webkit.org/results/15759942
Raphael Kubo da Costa (:rakuco)
Comment 8 2013-01-10 05:53:08 PST
(In reply to comment #5) > I wonder if it makes sense just to remove run-with-jhbuild in favor of jhbuild-wrapper run ? I thought about this earlier today as well, and it might be better than this approach indeed. The only drawback that comes into mind is that one would always end up building at least jhbuild, even if the rest of the dependencies is not built/used.
Raphael Kubo da Costa (:rakuco)
Comment 9 2013-01-10 08:30:43 PST
(In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #5) > > I wonder if it makes sense just to remove run-with-jhbuild in favor of jhbuild-wrapper run ? > > I thought about this earlier today as well, and it might be better than this approach indeed. The only drawback that comes into mind is that one would always end up building at least jhbuild, even if the rest of the dependencies is not built/used. I've done that in bug 106562. Most of the work done here is still done there, the only difference being that we now call jhbuild-wrapper directly.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.