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.
>

OK by me.

Martin
> Tomas
>
>
Received on Wed Aug 9 13:44:39 2006