[vlc-devel] [PATCH 2/4] doc: add an option to build libvlc sample app from the documentation
robux4 at ycbcr.xyz
Sat Feb 27 17:20:49 UTC 2021
On 2/27/2021 3:56 PM, Alexandre Janniaux wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 10:48:43AM +0100, Steve Lhomme wrote:
>> On 2021-02-26 18:16, Alexandre Janniaux wrote:
>>> As mentioned privately, I'm not fond of adding yet another build
>>> system to build examples, especially since it won't even be testing
>>> the buildsystem final users are supposed to use.
>> There is not "yet another build system" in this patch.
> Sorry, what? you litterally create doc/libvlc/Makefile.am
> typically to build QtGL and QtPlayer with new automake
> targets and even new automake rules whereas there is already
> a qmake-based build system.
Our "build system" is autotools. I just use that.
Please point me to the "qmake-based build system" we already use.
> With that, both can now get out-of-sync with regards to the
> other one, and one of them is even never used in the CI while
> the other would always be used. Better remove the other one
> like I mentioned then, but as I said:
> - users will never build their application from the VLC build
> - most Qt users will typically never use automake to build a
> Qt application, so it seems like a bad target for
> - in addition, it means that you need to build libvlc in order
> to build the examples, which is quite inconvenient since you
> could be able to ship the examples with a packaged libvlc.
>> The final users are free to use whatever they want and that's a good reason
>> not to orientate them in any favored direction.
> - and I completely agree with this point right above, which is
> why using automake within the same autoconf package is a bad
> idea, since it will never be the same environment for other
> buildsystem, by-pass potential dependency detection systems
> and thus is quite opinionated. But more on this in next
>>> I'd prefer that we typically use make install to a given prefix and
>>> then use qmake/foomake/etc with the correct PKG_CONFIG_PATH. The
>>> alternative is to use only the automake buildsystem but to be fair,
>> Last time I proposed a similar patch, Rémi advised to use "noinst_" instead
>> of "bin_" prefix. And IMO it makes sense not to install sample code. The
>> solution you propose is the opposite, it requires to install libvlc before
>> building the samples. Something that is not needed by us nor the end user
>> who will need to repackage the build anyway.
> There's a huge difference between "do not install the examples"
> (which makes perfect sense because users generally don't need
> them on their systems) and "do not install libvlc".
> Typically, if you don't install libvlc, but use the mock plugins
> in the examples, it might work with the automake buildsystem you
> wrote but won't work with a packaged VLC and an external build
> system, because mock plugin is not installed.
> So I really fail to see how it's the opposite.
> In addition, if libvlc needs to be repackaged (which imho is
> already a flaw in our buildsystem since it bypass the make
> install behaviour and is another layer above the buildsystem
> which actually mimic the layer below instead of using it), then
> we just need to actually package libvlc in the CI before using
> it in the examples.
>>> what are the odds that final users are building their application
>>> inside libvlc buildsystem without having an installed package?
>> Maybe it's customary on Linux (is there a separate libvlc package on Linux
>> distros ?) but on Windows or Mac or Android or iOS they will need to package
>> libvlc by their own means, with their build system. So the way we build it
>> for ourself will not have much impact.
> I don't think many people wants to be compiling libvlc
> themselves, even on Windows, and especially on Windows.
> But anyway say that this is true. Why use libvlc from
> the build directory instead of using libvlc from the
> packaged directory then?
> Then, yes, we have tools to detect dependencies much like
> any other platforms. We don't typically use additional
> layer of dependency management like Conan but the user
> might use that to provide libvlc support. By using external
> build system (and actually any external buildsystem), we
> show the user how it can use it to build with libvlc with
> minor tweaking to the dependency layer, be it cmake, meson,
> qmake, conan or anything other used on Windows. How is using
> uninstalled libtool library which almost none of the above
> buildsystem understand is less opinionated than using the
> idiomatic buildsystem used within the community the examples
> are made for?
> Just so this message is clear, I'd be happy that we test the
> examples in the CI and I'm glad that you initiated work
> regarding that. But honestly even the previous buildsystem
> was broken last time I used it and I had to fix it, I don't
> want another maintenance burden there and especially if it
> gives no additional value to the enduser.
> The --enable-doc-samples can still be in place in configure
> with much less code and without duplicating the current work.
> Alexandre Janniaux
> vlc-devel mailing list
> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options:
More information about the vlc-devel