[Buildroot] SDL directfb dependence [was: Re: svn commit: trunk/buildroot/package/sdl]

[Ulf Samuelsson]

fre 2007-07-27 klockan 18:16 +0200 skrev Bernhard Fischer:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 08:55:57AM +0200, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> >>> The SDL compile failed since "directfb.h" could not be found
> >>> so I made the assumption, that it was neccessary.
> >>> Maybe I was wrong, but if it is not required, why the error message?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > If you want directfb and directfb-support, the you should select it
> >>> > manually, no?
> >>>
> >>> Best Regards
> >>> Ulf Samuelsson
> >>>
> >
> >> DirectFB is not required.
> >> SDL only needs the directfb.h header to build, in case directfb might be
> >> invoked later at run time.
> >> directfb is not used by default by SDL
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -Rex
> >> 
> >
> >OK, so we need to download the DirectFB and install its headers.
> >SDL won't build in buildroot, unless we do.
> 
> Can you check if a
> ifndef ($(BR2_PACKAGE_DIRECTFB),y)
> 	$(SED) "/directfb.h>/d" all/odd/files/*
> endif
> 

Sounds dangerous to me.
What happens if you build SDL first, and then enables DirectFB?

I am thinking more along the line to create a new target
"directfb-headers" in the package/directfb/directfb.mk.

This will do ~ make DESTDIR=$(STAGING_DIR) -C directfb install
without moving the directfb to $(TARGET_DIR)

Have tested this,and it seems to work.

Takes a little extra time to build DirectFB but if you need
it later, then the job is done...

> in the configure stage bypasses this odd dependency?
> I.e. if we (or rather the SDL folks) don't need some structs from
> directfb then we can wipe the header just fine.
> 
> Apart from that, isn't there a --disable-directfb or something like
> that in SDL?
> /me pets GGI


Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson.