Re: m68k buildd's without 1.5GB of free disk should not attempt xfree86
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 the X server needs the X11 header files in the exports directory. Apparently Imake doesn't know how to express just export the headers, don't really compile the library. [...] What about using the system installed headers, like the DRI tree does? And have XFree86 Build-Depend on itself? No thanks! I was thinking of a separate source package. You want two copies of the huge XFree86 source tarballl in the archive ? Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: m68k buildd's without 1.5GB of free disk should not attempt xfree86
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 the X server needs the X11 header files in the exports directory. Apparently Imake doesn't know how to express just export the headers, don't really compile the library. [...] What about using the system installed headers, like the DRI tree does? And have XFree86 Build-Depend on itself? No thanks! I was thinking of a separate source package. You want two copies of the huge XFree86 source tarballl in the archive ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: m68k buildd's without 1.5GB of free disk should not attempt xfree86
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 alternative to the stock servers, and I would like to see it used in graphic installs. However, I agree that to some people Xvesa may also be useful as a single-floppy X server, and I think it's a good idea to build it against uclibc by default. Juliusz
Re: m68k buildd's without 1.5GB of free disk should not attempt xfree86
[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 to use JL Xvesa as a failsafe X server for intel. Else what's the point? I do see Xvesa as a failsafe alternative to the stock servers, and I would like to see it used in graphic installs. However, I agree that to some people Xvesa may also be useful as a single-floppy X server, and I think it's a good idea to build it against uclibc by default. Grrr. You realize, of course, that to accomodate both groups we'd need two packages. Most Debian installers are going to be glibc-based, and I doubt they can afford to have two libc's on the system. 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 be told to export headers for libraries instead of compiling them as well. 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 the headers, don't really compile the library. If we had that it would really cut down on consumption of time and space. -- G. Branden Robinson|Men use thought only to justify Debian GNU/Linux |their wrong doings, and speech only [EMAIL PROTECTED] |to conceal their thoughts. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Voltaire pgpOVJFGIrSHx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: m68k buildd's without 1.5GB of free disk should not attempt xfree86
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 server for intel. Else what's the point? I do see Xvesa as a failsafe alternative to the stock servers, and I would like to see it used in graphic installs. However, I agree that to some people Xvesa may also be useful as a single-floppy X server, and I think it's a good idea to build it against uclibc by default. That's more or less my point: compile it against uclibc, be it dynamic for a graphic install (busybox in installs is being compiled against uclibc), or static for a truly failsafe server (and small: a statically linked Xvesa against uclibc is well below the 1MB mark) Howerver, I repeat that xvesa is intel-only; the kdrive fbdev server would be the equivalent on non-intel. I don't suggest the fbdev one for intel because the vesa one is vesa 1, i.e. vbe, afaik, so it works in lots of places where vesafb doesn't. Heck, it works in places where XFree86's vesa driver doesn't, even on some twisted videoboards that don't even work with their original (windows) dirvers. Now, putting the burden of an uclibc build environment on branden is _not_ something I'm willing to even think about trying to start to suggest. -- John Lenton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- Random fortune: La libertad es aquella facultad que aumenta la utilidad de todas las demás facultades. -- Kant. (1724-1804).
Re: m68k buildd's without 1.5GB of free disk should not attempt xfree86
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 be told to export headers for libraries instead of compiling them as well. 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 the headers, don't really compile the library. If we had that it would really cut down on consumption of time and space. What about using the system installed headers, like the DRI tree does? -- Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast
Re: m68k buildd's without 1.5GB of free disk should not attempt xfree86
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 the headers, don't really compile the library. [...] What about using the system installed headers, like the DRI tree does? And have XFree86 Build-Depend on itself? No thanks! -- G. Branden Robinson| Convictions are more dangerous Debian GNU/Linux | enemies of truth than lies. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Friedrich Nietzsche http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpnodLS8ifAu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: m68k buildd's without 1.5GB of free disk should not attempt xfree86
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 directory. Apparently Imake doesn't know how to express just export the headers, don't really compile the library. [...] What about using the system installed headers, like the DRI tree does? And have XFree86 Build-Depend on itself? No thanks! It's bad enough that freetype2 depends on xutils, and xfree86 depends on freetype2... (though one can at least work around it in ugly ways when bootstrapping a new port, by forcibly setting the freetype-build options to build it within xfree86 long enough to make xutils build, then rebuilding it correctly). Making X Build-Depend on itself would be... augh. I'd have to start pulling my hair out. -- *** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/ pgpqbKHpVfCGy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: m68k buildd's without 1.5GB of free disk should not attempt xfree86
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. Apparently Imake doesn't know how to express just export the headers, don't really compile the library. [...] What about using the system installed headers, like the DRI tree does? And have XFree86 Build-Depend on itself? No thanks! I was thinking of a separate source package. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast
Re: m68k buildd's without 1.5GB of free disk should not attempt xfree86
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 alternative to the stock servers, and I would like to see it used in graphic installs. However, I agree that to some people Xvesa may also be useful as a single-floppy X server, and I think it's a good idea to build it against uclibc by default. Juliusz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: m68k buildd's without 1.5GB of free disk should not attempt xfree86
[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 to use JL Xvesa as a failsafe X server for intel. Else what's the point? I do see Xvesa as a failsafe alternative to the stock servers, and I would like to see it used in graphic installs. However, I agree that to some people Xvesa may also be useful as a single-floppy X server, and I think it's a good idea to build it against uclibc by default. Grrr. You realize, of course, that to accomodate both groups we'd need two packages. Most Debian installers are going to be glibc-based, and I doubt they can afford to have two libc's on the system. 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 be told to export headers for libraries instead of compiling them as well. 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 the headers, don't really compile the library. If we had that it would really cut down on consumption of time and space. -- G. Branden Robinson|Men use thought only to justify Debian GNU/Linux |their wrong doings, and speech only [EMAIL PROTECTED] |to conceal their thoughts. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Voltaire msg04083/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: m68k buildd's without 1.5GB of free disk should not attempt xfree86
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 the headers, don't really compile the library. [...] What about using the system installed headers, like the DRI tree does? And have XFree86 Build-Depend on itself? No thanks! -- G. Branden Robinson| Convictions are more dangerous Debian GNU/Linux | enemies of truth than lies. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Friedrich Nietzsche http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | msg04110/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: m68k buildd's without 1.5GB of free disk should not attempt xfree86
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 directory. Apparently Imake doesn't know how to express just export the headers, don't really compile the library. [...] What about using the system installed headers, like the DRI tree does? And have XFree86 Build-Depend on itself? No thanks! It's bad enough that freetype2 depends on xutils, and xfree86 depends on freetype2... (though one can at least work around it in ugly ways when bootstrapping a new port, by forcibly setting the freetype-build options to build it within xfree86 long enough to make xutils build, then rebuilding it correctly). Making X Build-Depend on itself would be... augh. I'd have to start pulling my hair out. -- *** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/ msg04116/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: m68k buildd's without 1.5GB of free disk should not attempt xfree86
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 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 what's the point? the libs are bigger than the execs anyway. -- John Lenton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- Random fortune: People who make no mistakes do not usually make anything.
Re: m68k buildd's without 1.5GB of free disk should not attempt xfree86
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 what's the point? the libs are bigger than the execs anyway. Noted. Jim Gettys is the one who asked for it so I guess I'll ask his opinion. -- G. Branden Robinson|I'm sorry if the following sounds Debian GNU/Linux |combative and excessively personal, [EMAIL PROTECTED] |but that's my general style. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Ian Jackson pgpiAX0bKA7yP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: m68k buildd's without 1.5GB of free disk should not attempt xfree86
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 what's the point? the libs are bigger than the execs anyway. Noted. Jim Gettys is the one who asked for it so I guess I'll ask his opinion. -- G. Branden Robinson|I'm sorry if the following sounds Debian GNU/Linux |combative and excessively personal, [EMAIL PROTECTED] |but that's my general style. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Ian Jackson msg04045/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
