[libcamera-devel] [PATCH v2 02/12] libcamera: add dependency on libudev

[Kieran Bingham]

Hi Laurent,

On 10/01/2019 13:39, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Kieran,
> 
> On Wednesday, 9 January 2019 19:07:29 EET Kieran Bingham wrote:
>> On 29/12/2018 03:28, Niklas Söderlund wrote:
>>> The device enumeration will depend on libudev, add the dependency to the
>>> build system. This should be turned into a optional dependency once a
>>> device enumerator not using udev is supported.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund at ragnatech.se>
>>> Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart at ideasonboard.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>  src/libcamera/meson.build | 5 ++++-
>>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/libcamera/meson.build b/src/libcamera/meson.build
>>> index 46591069aa5f8beb..52b556a8ed4050cb 100644
>>> --- a/src/libcamera/meson.build
>>> +++ b/src/libcamera/meson.build
>>> @@ -16,7 +16,10 @@ includes = [
>>>      libcamera_internal_includes,
>>>  ]
>>>
>>> +libudev = dependency('libudev')
>>> +
>>
>> The website currently states that we will not depend on anything except
>> the standard libraries [0].
> 
> It also states "If other dependencies are deemed to be useful during 
> development they shall be proposed and reviewed." :-) Note that we should make 
> this dependency optional.

Ah yes - I'm not disagreeing on the inclusion of the dependency - just
that it leaves the documentation out-dated.

Agreed on making it optional at some point but we can call that an
optimisation at the moment :) (and I don't think it can be optional
until there is a sysfs fallback option)

>> I guess this will be updated when we move the website to build from the
>> repo, although I can't see anywhere within Documentation listing
>> anything similar. Is there a section missing in our source level docs?
> 
> The rest of the section has been added to the coding style document, but this 
> particular bullet point is missing. It doesn't belong to the coding style in 
> my opinion. Any idea on who to structure the documentation to give it a home ?

We have a top level README.md which describes how to build the project.
That file itself could do with some attention at somepoint, but I think
project dependencies should go with build instructions. I think we
should keep a top-level README.md - but we might want to integrate that
somehow into the website documentation as well in a manner which doesn't
duplicate the text if possible.



Can we progress your patches that build the website from the source tree?

I think at least bcd64a88e307...e164951f08 inclusive from your
documentation branch could be posted and integrated already...

Would you like to do so ? or shall I steal the patches ? :)
Personally I'd say just push them:
  Documentation: Add custom theme
  Documentation: Make the toctree more web-friendly
  Documentation: Link to the API documentation generated by Doxygen

Can have an Acked-by: tag from me if you like.

I realise there is a bit of a hack/workaround in that last patch - but
it works and if we dislike it so much we can solve it later, along with
looking at the sphinx/breathe integration at some point.

I'd rather see the patches progress upstream as they are as it will
allow us to tie in the website documentation directly and improve
incrementally.

--
Kieran


>> [0] http://www.libcamera.org/docs.html#technical-requirements
>>
>>>  libcamera = shared_library('camera',
>>>                             libcamera_sources,
>>>                             install : true,
>>> -                           include_directories : includes)
>>> +                           include_directories : includes,
>>> +                           dependencies : libudev)
> 

-- 
Regards
--
Kieran