Re: How to handle all our ports?

Robert Staudinger wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> while integrating the sugar port i've came across a number of
> compile-time optional code enclosed in XP_SIMPLE_TOOLBAR defines. If
> my memory serves me right that's been introduced by Hub to generalise
> hildon specific stuff.
>
> Now thing with the sugar port is that it again has its set of unique
> requirements and we cannot really reuse much of the hildon
> modularisation. So I'd like to propose that (different gtk based)
> ports be handled in the following manner:
>
> + Use the toolkit name for all pre-, post- and in-fixes (this has been
> done for hildon, i've been renaming some "olpc" to "sugar")
>
> + Do modularisation in the build system where possible. There are some
> hildon/XP_SIMPLE_$foo defines used in various action- and
> toolbar-configs *. In order to keep the code readable we might be
> better off splitting conditional stuff out to into separate files
> where it makes sense and make the build system do the right thing.
>
> + That would mean getting rid of XP_SIMPLE_$foo where it in reality
> means HAVE_HILDON. We have the EMBEDDED_TARGET define anyways for
> stuff that's common for embedded platforms (e.g. defaulting to "normal
> mode" without generous margins).
>
> If there are no objections i'll move the sugar branch in that direction.

+1 from me.

Tomas
Received on Tue Aug 8 16:52:20 2006