qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Darryl L. Pierce" <dpie...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: 0.18 inclusion request - Perl upstream tarball changes
Date Fri, 13 Jul 2012 16:52:14 GMT
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 04:54:10PM +0100, Gordon Sim wrote:
> >So what would be a better path to take then? My goal here is to have a
> >smaller tarball that would be the upstream source for the perl-qpid
> >package in this case.
> 
> In the short term, perhaps a make target in the cpp project to
> create the perl tarball would be sufficient? Or even just a specific
> script to include with the binding itself in the cpp source tarball?

I do have a separate build target that's a part of the Cmake system that
produces the tarball called "perl_sources". It's embedded in this patch
set.

> I do think the bindings could probably be separated from the cpp
> build (but I don't know that much about them). That may well be a
> beneficial thing to do and that may then solve the issue. I recall a
> thread on this recently, so trying to bring that to a conclusion for
> the next release might be a good path.

I have a separate patch out there that achieves this goal; i.e., it
excludes the language bindings from the build by default in Cmake. [1]
That way anybody working on just C++ can avoid having to build all of
that, while someone like me working on the bindings calls the
appropriate language target and it compiles the C++ code dependencies.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4083

-- 
Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/


Mime
View raw message