OLPC config in salut in F9?

[Guillaume Desmottes]

Le jeudi 26 juin 2008 à 17:23 +0200, Morgan Collett a écrit :
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 17:03, Guillaume Desmottes
> <guillaume.desmottes at collabora.co.uk> wrote:
> > Le jeudi 26 juin 2008 à 17:01 +0200, Morgan Collett a écrit :
> >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:01, Guillaume Desmottes
> >> <guillaume.desmottes at collabora.co.uk> wrote:
> >> > Le mardi 24 juin 2008 à 17:36 -0700, Brian Pepple a écrit :
> >> >> On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 01:12 +0200, Morgan Collett wrote:
> >> >> > Can we enable the OLPC-specific patches and config in telepathy-salut
> >> >> > in F-9? We're rebasing OLPC builds on F-9 and it would be good to work
> >> >> > in the F-9 branch and not need to fork.
> >> >>
> >> >> Does it make sense to have these patches in F9? I'm on vacation right
> >> >> now, so I don't really have time to look at the patches.  If it makes
> >> >> sense to have these in F9 in addition to OLPC, I don't have a problem
> >> >> with you doing enabling it.
> >> >
> >> > Not really. These patches are ugly OLPC specific workarounds due to XO
> >> > security model (Rainbow).
> >> > Building Salut with --enable-olpc doesn't hurt though (Debian does).
> >>
> >> I asked Dennis about branching salut, and he recommended we try keep
> >> everything in F-9 if possible. Is it feasible to put the rainbow
> >> specific patches in such that they are enabled with a runtime option,
> >> if built with --enable-olpc?
> >
> > Then it would be build time option and F9 users will have the patch
> > applied anyway (which is not really a good idea).
> 
> Can we make it a runtime option?


We certainly don't want to add a CM parameter for this. We could
eventually check an env variable but I'm not convince that's a so good
idea as these workarounds are very very hackish.

Sjoerd, Daf: Thoughts?


	G.