compile problems with xfrun

Brian J. Tarricone bjt23 at
Thu Jul 22 18:20:02 CEST 2004

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Jasper Huijsmans wrote:

> Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
> ...
> > 
> >>>Anyway, I just wanted to raise the issue here to see if anyone has objections
> >>>or otherwise strong opinion about it.
> > 
> > 
> > so by that you mean you'll email the list and go ahead and do it anyway 
> > before anyone has a chance to respond?
> > 
> That statement was mine ;-) It seemed like something that should be 
> discussed to me.

whoops, guess i got confused in the quoting.  my apologies.

> > furthermore, i don't see why xfheaders is necessary.  why can't 
> > xfce4-modules simply install its own header files?  i may be 
> > misunderstanding exactly what you're trying to do here, but i'm sure 
> > there's a less confusing way of doing this that avoids adding another 
> > module.
> The issue I raised is that xfrun depends optionally on xfce4-modules. 
> For that purpose it used to have a private copy of a xfce4-modules 
> header files. Edscott changed that, effectively making xfce-utils depend 
> on xfce4-modules during build.
> xfheaders is not a general headers package, but only for xfce4-modules. 
> Therefore it should be called xfce4-modules-headers, if anything. I 
> still don't like the idea of extra modules for this though.

i still maintain that the proper way of doing this is to create a stub 
library in xfce-utils that knows how to talk to and load xfce4-modules 
if they're present.  sure, that means a little extra work if the header 
for one of the modules changes, but you'd have to mess with xfce-utils 
anyway if that happened.

if anyone wants to look at a sample of how it's done, check out
xfce4/xfdesktop/common/desktop-menu-stub.[ch].  requiring a new headers 
module is IMO a kludge and incorrect.


More information about the Xfce4-dev mailing list