[Buildroot] svn commit: trunk/buildroot/package/sdl

[Buildroot] svn commit: trunk/buildroot/package/sdl

[ulf at uclibc.org]

Author: ulf
Date: 2007-07-25 10:39:26 -0700 (Wed, 25 Jul 2007)
New Revision: 19261

Log:
Make SDL seled DirectFB

Modified:
   trunk/buildroot/package/sdl/Config.in


Changeset:
Modified: trunk/buildroot/package/sdl/Config.in
===================================================================
--- trunk/buildroot/package/sdl/Config.in	2007-07-25 17:37:50 UTC (rev 19260)
+++ trunk/buildroot/package/sdl/Config.in	2007-07-25 17:39:26 UTC (rev 19261)
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 config BR2_PACKAGE_SDL
 	bool "SDL"
 	default n
+	select BR2_PACKAGE_DIRECTFB
 	help
 
 	  http://www.libsdl.org/

[Buildroot] svn commit: trunk/buildroot/package/sdl

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 10:39:27AM -0700, ulf at uclibc.org wrote:
>Author: ulf
>Date: 2007-07-25 10:39:26 -0700 (Wed, 25 Jul 2007)
>New Revision: 19261
>
>Log:
>Make SDL seled DirectFB
>
>Modified:
>   trunk/buildroot/package/sdl/Config.in
>
>
>Changeset:
>Modified: trunk/buildroot/package/sdl/Config.in
>===================================================================
>--- trunk/buildroot/package/sdl/Config.in	2007-07-25 17:37:50 UTC (rev 19260)
>+++ trunk/buildroot/package/sdl/Config.in	2007-07-25 17:39:26 UTC (rev 19261)
>@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
> config BR2_PACKAGE_SDL
> 	bool "SDL"
> 	default n
>+	select BR2_PACKAGE_DIRECTFB

Why? It's perfectly fine to build SDL without
a) FB support (any FB support)
b) with the stock FB (no directfb)

If you want directfb and directfb-support, the you should select it
manually, no?

[Buildroot] svn commit: trunk/buildroot/package/sdl

[Ulf Samuelsson]

tor 2007-07-26 klockan 00:39 +0200 skrev Bernhard Fischer:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 10:39:27AM -0700, ulf at uclibc.org wrote:
> >Author: ulf
> >Date: 2007-07-25 10:39:26 -0700 (Wed, 25 Jul 2007)
> >New Revision: 19261
> >
> >Log:
> >Make SDL seled DirectFB
> >
> >Modified:
> >   trunk/buildroot/package/sdl/Config.in
> >
> >
> >Changeset:
> >Modified: trunk/buildroot/package/sdl/Config.in
> >===================================================================
> >--- trunk/buildroot/package/sdl/Config.in	2007-07-25 17:37:50 UTC (rev 19260)
> >+++ trunk/buildroot/package/sdl/Config.in	2007-07-25 17:39:26 UTC (rev 19261)
> >@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
> > config BR2_PACKAGE_SDL
> > 	bool "SDL"
> > 	default n
> >+	select BR2_PACKAGE_DIRECTFB
> 
> Why? It's perfectly fine to build SDL without
> a) FB support (any FB support)
> b) with the stock FB (no directfb)
> 

The SDL compile failed since "directfb.h" could not be found
so I made the assumption, that it was neccessary.
Maybe I was wrong, but if it is not required, why the error message?


> If you want directfb and directfb-support, the you should select it
> manually, no?

Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson

[Buildroot] svn commit: trunk/buildroot/package/sdl

[Rex Ashbaugh]

DirectFB is not required.
SDL only needs the directfb.h header to build, in case directfb might be
invoked later at run time.
directfb is not used by default by SDL


-Rex


On 7/25/07, Ulf Samuelsson <ulf@atmel.com> wrote:
>
> tor 2007-07-26 klockan 00:39 +0200 skrev Bernhard Fischer:
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 10:39:27AM -0700, ulf at uclibc.org wrote:
> > >Author: ulf
> > >Date: 2007-07-25 10:39:26 -0700 (Wed, 25 Jul 2007)
> > >New Revision: 19261
> > >
> > >Log:
> > >Make SDL seled DirectFB
> > >
> > >Modified:
> > >   trunk/buildroot/package/sdl/Config.in
> > >
> > >
> > >Changeset:
> > >Modified: trunk/buildroot/package/sdl/Config.in
> > >===================================================================
> > >--- trunk/buildroot/package/sdl/Config.in    2007-07-25 17:37:50 UTC
> (rev 19260)
> > >+++ trunk/buildroot/package/sdl/Config.in    2007-07-25 17:39:26 UTC
> (rev 19261)
> > >@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
> > > config BR2_PACKAGE_SDL
> > >     bool "SDL"
> > >     default n
> > >+    select BR2_PACKAGE_DIRECTFB
> >
> > Why? It's perfectly fine to build SDL without
> > a) FB support (any FB support)
> > b) with the stock FB (no directfb)
> >
>
> The SDL compile failed since "directfb.h" could not be found
> so I made the assumption, that it was neccessary.
> Maybe I was wrong, but if it is not required, why the error message?
>
>
> > If you want directfb and directfb-support, the you should select it
> > manually, no?
>
> Best Regards
> Ulf Samuelsson
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> buildroot mailing list
> buildroot at uclibc.org
> http://busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://busybox.net/lists/buildroot/attachments/20070725/24f65d50/attachment.htm 

[Buildroot] svn commit: trunk/buildroot/package/sdl

[Ulf Samuelsson]

>> The SDL compile failed since "directfb.h" could not be found
>> so I made the assumption, that it was neccessary.
>> Maybe I was wrong, but if it is not required, why the error message?
>>
>>
>> > If you want directfb and directfb-support, the you should select it
>> > manually, no?
>>
>> Best Regards
>> Ulf Samuelsson
>>

> DirectFB is not required.
> SDL only needs the directfb.h header to build, in case directfb might be
> invoked later at run time.
> directfb is not used by default by SDL
> 
> 
> -Rex
> 

OK, so we need to download the DirectFB and install its headers.
SDL won't build in buildroot, unless we do.

Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson

[Buildroot] SDL directfb dependence [was: Re: svn commit: trunk/buildroot/package/sdl]

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 08:55:57AM +0200, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>>> The SDL compile failed since "directfb.h" could not be found
>>> so I made the assumption, that it was neccessary.
>>> Maybe I was wrong, but if it is not required, why the error message?
>>>
>>>
>>> > If you want directfb and directfb-support, the you should select it
>>> > manually, no?
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>> Ulf Samuelsson
>>>
>
>> DirectFB is not required.
>> SDL only needs the directfb.h header to build, in case directfb might be
>> invoked later at run time.
>> directfb is not used by default by SDL
>> 
>> 
>> -Rex
>> 
>
>OK, so we need to download the DirectFB and install its headers.
>SDL won't build in buildroot, unless we do.

Can you check if a
ifndef ($(BR2_PACKAGE_DIRECTFB),y)
	$(SED) "/directfb.h>/d" all/odd/files/*
endif

in the configure stage bypasses this odd dependency?
I.e. if we (or rather the SDL folks) don't need some structs from
directfb then we can wipe the header just fine.

Apart from that, isn't there a --disable-directfb or something like
that in SDL?
/me pets GGI

[Buildroot] SDL directfb dependence [was: Re: svn commit: trunk/buildroot/package/sdl]

[Ulf Samuelsson]

fre 2007-07-27 klockan 18:16 +0200 skrev Bernhard Fischer:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 08:55:57AM +0200, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> >>> The SDL compile failed since "directfb.h" could not be found
> >>> so I made the assumption, that it was neccessary.
> >>> Maybe I was wrong, but if it is not required, why the error message?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > If you want directfb and directfb-support, the you should select it
> >>> > manually, no?
> >>>
> >>> Best Regards
> >>> Ulf Samuelsson
> >>>
> >
> >> DirectFB is not required.
> >> SDL only needs the directfb.h header to build, in case directfb might be
> >> invoked later at run time.
> >> directfb is not used by default by SDL
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -Rex
> >> 
> >
> >OK, so we need to download the DirectFB and install its headers.
> >SDL won't build in buildroot, unless we do.
> 
> Can you check if a
> ifndef ($(BR2_PACKAGE_DIRECTFB),y)
> 	$(SED) "/directfb.h>/d" all/odd/files/*
> endif
> 

Sounds dangerous to me.
What happens if you build SDL first, and then enables DirectFB?

I am thinking more along the line to create a new target
"directfb-headers" in the package/directfb/directfb.mk.

This will do ~ make DESTDIR=$(STAGING_DIR) -C directfb install
without moving the directfb to $(TARGET_DIR)

Have tested this,and it seems to work.

Takes a little extra time to build DirectFB but if you need
it later, then the job is done...

> in the configure stage bypasses this odd dependency?
> I.e. if we (or rather the SDL folks) don't need some structs from
> directfb then we can wipe the header just fine.
> 
> Apart from that, isn't there a --disable-directfb or something like
> that in SDL?
> /me pets GGI


Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson.

[Buildroot] SDL directfb dependence [was: Re: svn commit: trunk/buildroot/package/sdl]

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 07:38:26PM +0200, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>fre 2007-07-27 klockan 18:16 +0200 skrev Bernhard Fischer:
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 08:55:57AM +0200, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>> >>> The SDL compile failed since "directfb.h" could not be found
>> >>> so I made the assumption, that it was neccessary.
>> >>> Maybe I was wrong, but if it is not required, why the error message?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> > If you want directfb and directfb-support, the you should select it
>> >>> > manually, no?
>> >>>
>> >>> Best Regards
>> >>> Ulf Samuelsson
>> >>>
>> >
>> >> DirectFB is not required.
>> >> SDL only needs the directfb.h header to build, in case directfb might be
>> >> invoked later at run time.
>> >> directfb is not used by default by SDL
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> -Rex
>> >> 
>> >
>> >OK, so we need to download the DirectFB and install its headers.
>> >SDL won't build in buildroot, unless we do.
>> 
>> Can you check if a
>> ifndef ($(BR2_PACKAGE_DIRECTFB),y)
>> 	$(SED) "/directfb.h>/d" all/odd/files/*
>> endif
>> 
>
>Sounds dangerous to me.
>What happens if you build SDL first, and then enables DirectFB?

yea, this wouldn't work out too well.
>
>I am thinking more along the line to create a new target
>"directfb-headers" in the package/directfb/directfb.mk.

Sounds like a good plan.
thanks,