On 5/14/07, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > When Xorg went modular, I thought it wasa good thing. Now I'm not so > sure. I'm sure its good for the developers. End users don't care. For > us, its a pain.
I personally like it, but I also have scripts and a framework that are very granular. The other reason I like it is that it's broken down X into something understandable instead of being a giant, scary blob. Now I understand about the libraries, the server, the driver and the applications. > > There are also a few other dependencies in each > > of the Xorg pages that I didn't list here. I just put in Mesa since > > it's closely tied into the X build. > > I think that we need to list the order of just about everything in the > intro, including an explanation on why things are ordered the way they > are. Then, in the individual sections, restate the dependencies for > that particular section. > > The reason is that I think users get into a flow of building packages > and don't always read each section as closely as we might like and go > directly to the instructions. I know I sometimes have a tendency to do > that. If we tell them up front, at least they can look for the > specifics for each X section. Right, I agree with that. You at least want to see it broken down linearly before you get into it. Whenever I build gnome, I'm always astounded by the extensive dependency tangents I get off into. It might be nice to have a few extra entities. Maybe xincludes so that you could reference xorg-lib-deps or something. Then it would be easy to update things in the book so they're referenced in the Introduction and the particular section. I don't if it's possible to structure the xml the way I'm envisioning. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
