xf86-input-evdev: Changes to 'master'

[Dan Nicholson]

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:13 AM, Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer at who-t.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 10:39:27PM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer at who-t.net> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 01:13:35AM -0200, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade wrote:
>> >> >>   But I think a better approach should be found for pkg-config
>> >> >> variables, as creating a configure option is basically only to
>> >> >> correct make distcheck.
>> >> >
>> >> > can you please explain what's wrong with make distcheck that it requires
>> >> > fixing?
>> >>
>> >>   make distcheck can be seen as a test of a build and install in
>> >> a controlled environment. It checks if the tarball contains all
>> >> the files required to build the package, among other tests.
>> >>
>> >>   The problem in the xf86-input-evdev was it attempting to install
>> >> files outside of DESTDIR. Actually, if you run make distcheck as
>> >> root user, it will work. As will it work if you specify a wrong
>> >> destdir but with correct permissions (usually a path not starting
>> >> with / and installing in the build directory), and not cause any
>> >> warnings.
>> >
>> > It will also work if you set up the PKG_CONFIG_PATH correctly.
>> >
>> > The properties header file is installed where the xserver installs the same
>> > header file (xserver-properties.h).
>> > Yes, this may be outside of the prefix, but it's where the other xorg header
>> > files go too. AFAIC this is the right place to put them.
>>
>> It is the right place to put them. However, part of the distcheck
>> process is checking that "make install" only installs files under
>> $prefix. I say that's a stupid check, but I also think that having
>> distcheck pass is a good thing because it uncovers a lot of packaging
>> bugs. AFAIK, there isn't a way to override that part of distcheck.
>>
>> > I'm happy to add* a configure-time option for those that want the header
>> > somewhere else. But auto-guessing just to "fix" make distcheck on your machine
>> > is not the right thing to do. And I would have appreciated if you would have
>> > sent the patch to the list for review first before breaking evdev.
>>
>> Attached is a patch that should add the appropriate workaround. No
>> help text is added for the --with-sdkdir option so that people don't
>> get the idea that they want to use this option.
>
> applied the patch locally, ran make distcheck and it still fails. Am I doing
> anything wrong?
> AFAICT from a quick peek, ${includedir} isn't expanded. Can you double-check
> this please?

That part worked for me, but it does fail on ChangeLog somehow.
${includedir} gets expanded by make eventually. Look at the generated
Makefile. All the derived directories like bindir are similar unless
you've explicitly set it from configure. How is it failing for you?

--
Dan