Add a new tool holding Xvfb bits.

Add a new tool holding Xvfb bits.

Compiled executables for Xvfb prepped on machines vaguely according to
instruction in this directory.

BUG=112734
TEST=These have been run on bots successfully.
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=121100

[Peter Mayo, 2012-02-07 04:39:18]

Chase, for intent & correctness.

Mark, for satisfactory situation vis-a-vis license.  If you wish to defer back
to Chase, feel free.

[mal, 2012-02-07 05:20:55]

Where's the license? Even if we're just using this as a build-time tool, it
would be good to point to the license info from a README. The binaries are
opaque and the xvfb/building/* scripts don't mention the terms of use of the
source code.

Can you include the project's COPYING or LICENSE file or the header from a
source file as LICENSE? Just want to make sure the terms of use are clear.

--Mark

[Peter Mayo, 2012-02-07 05:58:23]

On 2012/02/07 05:20:55, mal wrote:
> Where's the license? Even if we're just using this as a build-time tool, it
> would be good to point to the license info from a README. The binaries are
> opaque and the xvfb/building/* scripts don't mention the terms of use of the
> source code.
> 
> Can you include the project's COPYING or LICENSE file or the header from a
> source file as LICENSE? Just want to make sure the terms of use are clear.
> 
> --Mark

I've added the copyright files as details, and pulled what seem to be the
important paragraphs up into the README.

[mal, 2012-02-07 06:19:19]

LGTM.

Yuck, but LGTM. Thanks for calling out all the license info you could find. This
is really helpful in case someone wants to change how we're using the code. (I
know, I know... no one ever uses code except for the purpose for which it was
originally intended. Still, there's always that chance.)

[cmp, 2012-02-07 19:52:14]

http://codereview.chromium.org/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/README.google
File xvfb/README.google (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/README.google#newcode20
xvfb/README.google:20: * bash the fetch-source script to fetch the sources
s/bash the fetch-source script/run fetch-source/

http://codereview.chromium.org/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/README.google#newcode21
xvfb/README.google:21: * bash the install-prereqs script as root to check and
install need packages
'run install-rereqs (as root)'

http://codereview.chromium.org/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/README.google#newcode23
xvfb/README.google:23: * from there, bash the then-build script to extract and
build
'run then-build to extract...'

http://codereview.chromium.org/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/fetch-source
File xvfb/building/fetch-source (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/fetch-source#n...
xvfb/building/fetch-source:1: test -f util-macros-1.11.0.tar.gz || \
Add #!/bin/sh to the top, add a Chromium license header.

http://codereview.chromium.org/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/fetch-source#n...
xvfb/building/fetch-source:2: wget
http://xorg.freedesktop.org/releases/individual/util/util-macros-1.11.0.tar.gz
80 cols (here and below)

http://codereview.chromium.org/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/fetch-source#n...
xvfb/building/fetch-source:6:
http://xorg.freedesktop.org/releases/individual/proto/dri2proto-2.3.tar.gz
if either xproto* or dri2proto* are missing (but the other exists), then both
will be downloaded again.  let's test for them separately so only the necessary
files are downloaded.

use if [ ! -f ... ]; then wget fi syntax instead

http://codereview.chromium.org/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/fetch-source#n...
xvfb/building/fetch-source:21: #  gzip talloc-2.0.1.tar ; }
can lines 17-21 be removed / replaced with a comment?

http://codereview.chromium.org/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/fetch-source#n...
xvfb/building/fetch-source:33: # Go here instead, and use a more normal name.
can lines 30-33 be removed / replaced with a comment?

http://codereview.chromium.org/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/install-prereq
File xvfb/building/install-prereq (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/install-prereq...
xvfb/building/install-prereq:1: PPATH=/usr/lib/pkgconfig
Add #!/bin/sh to the top, add a Chromium license header.

http://codereview.chromium.org/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/install-prereq...
xvfb/building/install-prereq:2: LPATH=$(pwd)
doublequotes around $(pwd)

http://codereview.chromium.org/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/install-prereq...
xvfb/building/install-prereq:3: export PKG_CONFIG_PATH=${PPATH}
doublequotes around ${PPATH}

http://codereview.chromium.org/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/install-prereq...
xvfb/building/install-prereq:6: [ -f ${PPATH}/$1.pc ] || sudo apt-get install $2
indent by 2 spaces
use if [ ! -f "${PPATH}/$1.pc" ]; then ... fi

http://codereview.chromium.org/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/then-build
File xvfb/building/then-build (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/then-build#new...
xvfb/building/then-build:1: PPATH=/usr/lib/pkgconfig
Add #!/bin/sh to the top, add a Chromium license header.

[Peter Mayo, 2012-02-08 05:32:48]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/README.google
File xvfb/README.google (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/README.google#n...
xvfb/README.google:20: * bash the fetch-source script to fetch the sources
On 2012/02/07 19:52:14, cmp wrote:
> s/bash the fetch-source script/run fetch-source/

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/README.google#n...
xvfb/README.google:21: * bash the install-prereqs script as root to check and
install need packages
On 2012/02/07 19:52:14, cmp wrote:
> 'run install-rereqs (as root)'

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/README.google#n...
xvfb/README.google:23: * from there, bash the then-build script to extract and
build
On 2012/02/07 19:52:14, cmp wrote:
> 'run then-build to extract...'

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/fetch-...
File xvfb/building/fetch-source (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/fetch-...
xvfb/building/fetch-source:1: test -f util-macros-1.11.0.tar.gz || \
On 2012/02/07 19:52:14, cmp wrote:
> Add #!/bin/sh to the top, add a Chromium license header.

I was worried that adding a shebang would over-represent this recipe.  It's not
intended to be programming, just a list of commands.

Does each component need a LICENSE to put the copyright header on?

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/fetch-...
xvfb/building/fetch-source:2: wget
http://xorg.freedesktop.org/releases/individual/util/util-macros-1.11.0.tar.gz
On 2012/02/07 19:52:14, cmp wrote:
> 80 cols (here and below)

We would rather break up URLs?  Yuck ... refactored.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/fetch-...
xvfb/building/fetch-source:6:
http://xorg.freedesktop.org/releases/individual/proto/dri2proto-2.3.tar.gz
On 2012/02/07 19:52:14, cmp wrote:
> if either xproto* or dri2proto* are missing (but the other exists), then both
> will be downloaded again.  let's test for them separately so only the
necessary
> files are downloaded.
> 
> use if [ ! -f ... ]; then wget fi syntax instead

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/fetch-...
xvfb/building/fetch-source:21: #  gzip talloc-2.0.1.tar ; }
On 2012/02/07 19:52:14, cmp wrote:
> can lines 17-21 be removed / replaced with a comment?

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/fetch-...
xvfb/building/fetch-source:33: # Go here instead, and use a more normal name.
On 2012/02/07 19:52:14, cmp wrote:
> can lines 30-33 be removed / replaced with a comment?

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/instal...
File xvfb/building/install-prereq (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/instal...
xvfb/building/install-prereq:1: PPATH=/usr/lib/pkgconfig
On 2012/02/07 19:52:14, cmp wrote:
> Add #!/bin/sh to the top, add a Chromium license header.

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/instal...
xvfb/building/install-prereq:2: LPATH=$(pwd)
On 2012/02/07 19:52:14, cmp wrote:
> doublequotes around $(pwd)

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/instal...
xvfb/building/install-prereq:3: export PKG_CONFIG_PATH=${PPATH}
On 2012/02/07 19:52:14, cmp wrote:
> doublequotes around ${PPATH}

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/instal...
xvfb/building/install-prereq:6: [ -f ${PPATH}/$1.pc ] || sudo apt-get install $2
On 2012/02/07 19:52:14, cmp wrote:
> indent by 2 spaces
> use if [ ! -f "${PPATH}/$1.pc" ]; then ... fi

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/then-b...
File xvfb/building/then-build (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/then-b...
xvfb/building/then-build:1: PPATH=/usr/lib/pkgconfig
On 2012/02/07 19:52:14, cmp wrote:
> Add #!/bin/sh to the top, add a Chromium license header.

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/then-b...
xvfb/building/then-build:2: LPATH=$(pwd)
quoting: starting here, and then all references in order to support unfriendly
current dirs.

[cmp, 2012-02-08 18:57:08]

lgtm

[cmp, 2012-02-08 20:54:26]

On 2012/02/08 05:32:48, Peter Mayo wrote:
>
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/fetch-...
> File xvfb/building/fetch-source (right):
> 
>
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/fetch-...
> xvfb/building/fetch-source:1: test -f util-macros-1.11.0.tar.gz || \
> On 2012/02/07 19:52:14, cmp wrote:
> > Add #!/bin/sh to the top, add a Chromium license header.
> 
> I was worried that adding a shebang would over-represent this recipe.  It's
not
> intended to be programming, just a list of commands.

Ah, then the doc should be updated since IIRC it said "bash the script" and that
was the assumption I had.

> Does each component need a LICENSE to put the copyright header on?

As for the license header, that should go into any scripts you write / are
adding.

> 
>
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9348009/diff/2002/xvfb/building/fetch-...
> xvfb/building/fetch-source:2: wget
> http://xorg.freedesktop.org/releases/individual/util/util-macros-1.11.0.tar.gz
> On 2012/02/07 19:52:14, cmp wrote:
> > 80 cols (here and below)
> 
> We would rather break up URLs?  Yuck ... refactored.

Only if there's a decent way to do that.  It's common to not break up URLs if
there's no decent way.

[Peter Mayo, 2012-02-08 21:06:42]

On 2012/02/08 20:54:26, cmp wrote:
> On 2012/02/08 05:32:48, Peter Mayo wrote:
> > 
> > I was worried that adding a shebang would over-represent this recipe.  It's
> not
> > intended to be programming, just a list of commands.
> 
> Ah, then the doc should be updated since IIRC it said "bash the script" and
that
> was the assumption I had.

I should have changed tense.  We started by asking for a doc of what I had done.

I think they are rewritten as really simple scripts now.
Care to reconsider the lgtm, or add further nits?

> 
> > Does each component need a LICENSE to put the copyright header on?
> 
> As for the license header, that should go into any scripts you write / are
> adding.

The header says to see the "LICENSE", so the question is is there a LICENSE file
in
each DEP, or just the common Chromium copy?

[cmp_google, 2012-02-08 21:12:30]

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:06 PM, <petermayo@chromium.org> wrote:

> On 2012/02/08 20:54:26, cmp wrote:
>
>> On 2012/02/08 05:32:48, Peter Mayo wrote:
>> >
>> > I was worried that adding a shebang would over-represent this recipe.
>>  It's
>> not
>> > intended to be programming, just a list of commands.
>>
>
>  Ah, then the doc should be updated since IIRC it said "bash the script"
>> and
>>
> that
>
>> was the assumption I had.
>>
>
> I should have changed tense.  We started by asking for a doc of what I had
> done.
>
> I think they are rewritten as really simple scripts now.
> Care to reconsider the lgtm, or add further nits?
>
>
I think it's fine.


>
>  > Does each component need a LICENSE to put the copyright header on?
>>
>
>  As for the license header, that should go into any scripts you write / are
>> adding.
>>
>
> The header says to see the "LICENSE", so the question is is there a
> LICENSE file
> in
> each DEP, or just the common Chromium copy?
>
>
Ok, thanks for pointing out.  AFAIK there's usually a LICENSE file in each
DEP.


>
>
>
http://codereview.chromium.**org/9348009/<http://codereview.chromium.org/9348...
>

[Peter Mayo, 2012-02-08 21:41:41]

On 2012/02/08 21:12:30, cmp (DO NOT USE) wrote:
> > The header says to see the "LICENSE", so the question is is there a
> > LICENSE file
> > in
> > each DEP, or just the common Chromium copy?
> >
> >
> Ok, thanks for pointing out.  AFAIK there's usually a LICENSE file in each
> DEP.
> 

Added.  I hope it doesn't cause confusion with what it applies to (i.e. the
files that reference it)

[cmp, 2012-02-08 21:45:20]

Can you name it LICENSE.chromium?  I believe we use that today for things like
Buildbot, etc, where we have local mods.  Let's also call the README
README.chromium.  With that you should be fine to commit.