Re: [Gimp-print-devel] [External] Re: PKG_LIB_DIR/PKGMODULEDIR expansion issues

[Robert K. <rl...@al...>]

On 7/16/22 16:50, Matsumura, George wrote:
> On 7/16/22 12:35, Robert Krawitz wrote:
>> Use caution with links and attachments.
>>
>> On 7/16/22 06:31, Matsumura, George wrote:
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> In order to solve the mentioned issues, I was able to create the
>>> attached prefix_defines.patch which moves the expansion of the ${prefix}
>>> and ${exec_prefix} variables to build time through make as opposed to
>>> configure time through autoconf. This is in accordance with the
>>> suggestion here:
>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gnu.org%2Fsoftware%2Fautoconf%2Fmanual%2Fautoconf-2.67%2Fhtml_node%2FInstallation-Directory-Variables.html&data=05%7C01%7Cgm960420%40ohio.edu%7Cd5739f5c4e0849c0cc9d08da6759f501%7Cf3308007477c4a70888934611817c55a%7C0%7C0%7C637935933315176710%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wGuU%2BC4NHgTFiYTVdXWLI7IrRjhH9eIohyppPYlsB0Y%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> George,
>>
>> Could you regenerate these patches with 'git format-patch' so that the authorship will be properly
>> preserved?  Thanks!
> 
> Certainly. Thank you for reviewing them.

The model count == 0 patch looks unproblematic, although you removed a blank line unnecessarily.
Could you regenerate it without that inadvertent change?

The prefix defined patch is a bit more complex; in particular, you've removed a number of cases.
Those changes don't look a priori wrong, but I'd like to make sure this gets well tested.  What
testing have you done on it?