On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 04:14:50AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Don, 2002-10-10 at 03:56, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 11:29:49PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > > On Mit, 2002-10-09 at 19:25, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > > A servers-only build compiles Xlibs because th
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 04:14:50AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Don, 2002-10-10 at 03:56, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 11:29:49PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > > On Mit, 2002-10-09 at 19:25, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > > A servers-only build compiles Xlibs because t
On Don, 2002-10-10 at 03:56, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 11:29:49PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > On Mit, 2002-10-09 at 19:25, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > A servers-only build compiles Xlibs because the X server needs the X11
> > > header files in the exports directory.
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 08:56:47PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 11:29:49PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > On Mit, 2002-10-09 at 19:25, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > A servers-only build compiles Xlibs because the X server needs the X11
> > > header files in the exports
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 11:29:49PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On Mit, 2002-10-09 at 19:25, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > A servers-only build compiles Xlibs because the X server needs the X11
> > header files in the exports directory. Apparently Imake doesn't know
> > how to express "just export
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 08:56:47PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 11:29:49PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > On Mit, 2002-10-09 at 19:25, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > A servers-only build compiles Xlibs because the X server needs the X11
> > > header files in the export
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 11:29:49PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On Mit, 2002-10-09 at 19:25, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > A servers-only build compiles Xlibs because the X server needs the X11
> > header files in the exports directory. Apparently Imake doesn't know
> > how to express "just expor
On Mit, 2002-10-09 at 19:25, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> I guess I need to come up with a good way of figuring out how to copy
> only the needed portions of the build tree for a servers-only compile,
> without this being unrealiable.
>
> It would also be nice if the XFree86 build process could b
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 01:26:32PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> JL> I don't know XDirectFB, but the kdrive servers are probably
> JL> better served being compiled against a uclibc (yes they compile
> JL> cleanly against the newer uclibcs). Unless the idea is to use
> JL> Xvesa as a failsafe X
[m68k-build whacked from headers]
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 01:26:32PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> JL> I don't know XDirectFB, but the kdrive servers are probably
> JL> better served being compiled against a uclibc (yes they compile
> JL> cleanly against the newer uclibcs). Unless the idea is
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 01:26:32PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> JL> I don't know XDirectFB, but the kdrive servers are probably
> JL> better served being compiled against a uclibc (yes they compile
> JL> cleanly against the newer uclibcs). Unless the idea is to use
> JL> Xvesa as a failsafe
[m68k-build whacked from headers]
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 01:26:32PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> JL> I don't know XDirectFB, but the kdrive servers are probably
> JL> better served being compiled against a uclibc (yes they compile
> JL> cleanly against the newer uclibcs). Unless the idea i
JL> I don't know XDirectFB, but the kdrive servers are probably
JL> better served being compiled against a uclibc (yes they compile
JL> cleanly against the newer uclibcs). Unless the idea is to use
JL> Xvesa as a failsafe X server for intel. Else what's the point?
I do see Xvesa as a failsafe alte
JL> I don't know XDirectFB, but the kdrive servers are probably
JL> better served being compiled against a uclibc (yes they compile
JL> cleanly against the newer uclibcs). Unless the idea is to use
JL> Xvesa as a failsafe X server for intel. Else what's the point?
I do see Xvesa as a failsafe alt
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 05:00:21PM -0300, John Lenton wrote:
> I don't know XDirectFB, but the kdrive servers are probably
> better served being compiled against a uclibc (yes they compile
> cleanly against the newer uclibcs). Unless the idea is to use
> Xvesa as a failsafe X server for intel. Else
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 02:49:53PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> XFree86 was always huge but now it's huger thanks to the static
> debugging X server build, and with people snapping at my heels to build
> XDirectFB and TinyX X servers as well, it's only going to get huger.
I don't know XDire
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 05:00:21PM -0300, John Lenton wrote:
> I don't know XDirectFB, but the kdrive servers are probably
> better served being compiled against a uclibc (yes they compile
> cleanly against the newer uclibcs). Unless the idea is to use
> Xvesa as a failsafe X server for intel. Els
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 02:49:53PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> XFree86 was always huge but now it's huger thanks to the static
> debugging X server build, and with people snapping at my heels to build
> XDirectFB and TinyX X servers as well, it's only going to get huger.
I don't know XDir
18 matches
Mail list logo