,--- I/Alex (Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:22:27 -0500) ----* | ,--- I/Alex (Wed, 04 Feb 2009 08:55:28 -0500) ----* | | ,--- You/Florent (Wed, 4 Feb 2009 13:21:15 +0000) ----* | | | Please send patches. Kthxbye. | | | | Does this mean that you agree with me in principle and if I send you | | patches, there is a high probability they will he accepted (provided | | they work, of course)? | ,--- You/Florent (Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:00:25 +0000) ----* | | In principle yes. | | Good, thank you. | | | Now you do have to understand that this is a lot of boring work and | | you'll need approval from portmgr@, not just me. | | I understand both and it remains to be seen if I handle the task (not | in the next three weeks, at least, I think). But I don't want to go | for a lot of boring work without knowing that the change would be | welcome in principle, at least by some of the involved people.
I spent some time playing with this. Yes, that's a lot of work -- and a potential build destabilization. This said, I created a bsd.xorg.mk without GNOME dependencies, and modified a few lower level X components make files accordingly. The work is not done yet but I am able to build some protocols and libraries now and am usefully improving my understanding of both the ports build system and the modern X structure. I don't think I am going to submit my patches, even when I am done, because I see the far-reaching scope of the changes and an extra destabilization of current X in ports would not be a good idea. But I am thinking of building an X build structure for my own consumption. Essentially, I want a minimalist X build/install -- I run not that many X applications. E.g. I haven't seen any benefit of using HAL yet -- so I am happily running HAL-less and intend to continue to do so. Now another new (about two-years-old, I think) addition to X caught my attention -- XCB. I've done some reading and didn't see any argument for using it by a non-X-developer (while the architectural argument sounds good, no doubt.) This is good recent post expressing one view on XCB usefulness -- http://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-users/2008/09/07/msg007999.html: Re: Why disabling XCB in x11/lix11 ? ... So far nothing really needed it which made attacking the issues a less interesting way to proceed. And I also see plenty of XCB-enable/disable clauses in ports. E.g. graphics/cairo/Makefile:.ifdef(WITH_XCB) graphics/libGL/bsd.mesalib.mk:.if defined(WITHOUT_XCB) [ Three (grumbling) side observations here: 1. Why does bsd.mesalib.mk live in graphics/libGL, rather than in the standard Mk? 2. Why are there two different switches for the same purpose: WITH_XCB and WITHOUT_XCB? 3. Why neither of the switches is documented (as far as the search in Mk shows)? ] So, I built my libX11 without XCB and will try to build other components without it. My question to X experts is: will I lose anything without using XCB? (Again, not caring about X application development.) Thanks, -- Alex -- alex-goncha...@comcast.net -- _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
