On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 23:56:36 +0100 (CET) Vincent Torri <vto...@univ-evry.fr> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Mike Blumenkrantz wrote: > > > On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 23:26:09 +0100 (CET) > > Vincent Torri <vto...@univ-evry.fr> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Mike Blumenkrantz wrote: > >> > >>>>> I have recently been doing some work with my servers again and found a > >>>>> bug in ecore's configure process: if X is not installed on the machine, > >>>>> ecore will still attempt to build ecore_x, leading to compile failure. > >> > >>> checking whether ecore_x with XCB backend is to be built... no > >>> checking for X... no > >>> checking X11/X.h usability... yes > >>> checking X11/X.h presence... yes > >>> checking for X11/X.h... yes > >> > >> so it seems that, actually, X is installed > >> > >> Vincent > > no, I just have some X headers on the machine. there are no X-related > > libraries installed. > > if there are X headers, then X has been installed previously. If the > uninstallation has not been correctly done, it's the packager's fault, not > ecore. Not true. It's possible (and easy) to get packages which are just X headers for use with some other projects required for server administration (xen uses some of the X data types, for instance). In cases like this, X is not and was never installed. > > remove the headers or pass the correct 'disable' option to configure > > Vincent Passing the disable option is easy enough to do, but isn't this something that should be detected? -- Mike Blumenkrantz Zentific: NULL pointer dereferences now 50% off! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Colocation vs. Managed Hosting A question and answer guide to determining the best fit for your organization - today and in the future. http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
