RE: building gnome-hello for book

[Murray Cumming Comneon com]

> From: Malcolm Tredinnick [mailto:malcolm commsecure com au] 
> On Sun, 2003-06-01 at 01:37, Murray Cumming Comneon com wrote:
> > > From: kevdig rcn com [mailto:kevdig rcn com] 
> > > What I was really looking for was a simple example of an
> > > official build tree (i.e. autotools template) to use as a
> > > template. Anyone have a suggestion?
> > 
> > gnome-hello should be that.
> 
> Really?? Then we need to fix it. It stopped becoming a sample build
> template when autogen.sh was rewritten (see similar thread on
> gnome-devel-list currently). It looks nothing like the 
> "standard" build
> now. To make it a template, you would want to add:
> 
> - standard autogen.sh (copy the one from gnome-common -- see 
> bug #84442
> for the work required there; I am assuming you don't want to depend on
> gnome-common for a simple user-private package).

I rewrote it recently (what's in cvs), specifically to remove the dependency
on autogen.sh and to make sure that it worked with recent autotools (recent
at the time).

I suspect that the autogen.sh in gnome-common is excessively complicated.
Nobody should need a complex autogen.sh.
 
It's generally agreed that gnome-common should go away, and part of the
reason for my rewriting the autogen.sh in gnome-hello was to show how to do
it without gnome-common.

> - API and user documentation building.

Feel free to patch for documentation building. For API documentation
building, I think that would be in a separate libgnomehello example.
Applications don't have API.

> - If you are going to use configure.ac (indicating you are targeting
> autoconf 2.50 and later), then upgrade the configure script to remove
> the deprecated stuff.

Again. Patch, please.
 
> I suspect that it is probably better to leave gnome-hello as 
> is, with a
> simple build structure and then we fix gnome-skel to be a 
> good template.

What is gnome-skel?

Murray Cumming
murrayc usa net
www.murrayc.com