On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 20:34, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 10:37:52AM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote: > > About the only thing you can do is to discontinue use of the kernel > > headers altogether and provide your own, unconditional, definitions > > (with different names if there is any danger that the kernel's version > > of them might become visible under some conditions). This obviously > > sucks quite a lot, but less than the alternatives.
After a quick look at this thread in the -devel archive, I basically agree with this. The interface won't change in incompatible ways so XFree86 can safely have its own copy of the definitions, as it should. > This means forking from XFree86 upstream in a way that I'm not entirely > comfortable with. Is there anyone around who is familiar with DRM > innards who would be willing to work with me and upstream to get this > fix implemented in the proper place? I'm here. :) -- Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]