Re: Wine without X? Failing in dlls/winex11.drv
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010, James McKenzie wrote: > Please take time to read through the remainder of the posts here, even > though you've been here for a while. It is NOT possible to build Wine > without some sort of X on the build computer right now. Yep, I know. Which is why I wondered that configure did not bail out on my (the system in question was after an upgrade, and apparently something had gone wrong there. Which is why I asked here. ;-) On Sun, 14 Feb 2010, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > It's definitely supposed to fail in configure. That's handled by the > standard autoconf built-in check for X. Please try to figure out why it > doesn't catch that case. I spent an hour or so back then, and again an hour today and could not get this to reproduce. Presumably it's some weird combination of things that I had addressed and then failed to go back to. So, the only outcome of this is the little formatting patch I just submitted: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2010-September/093427.html Sorry, Gerald
Re: Wine without X? Failing in dlls/winex11.drv
Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > Trying to build Wine on a new tester which initially had too few packages > installed I ran into the following. > Gerald: Please take time to read through the remainder of the posts here, even though you've been here for a while. It is NOT possible to build Wine without some sort of X on the build computer right now. It would be great if --without-x did work throughly. Are you willing to fix this? James McKenzie
Re: Wine without X? Failing in dlls/winex11.drv
Gerald Pfeifer writes: > How to fix this? > > Should dlls/winex11.drv just not be built in such a case? Should > configure error out? (We do have --without-x, too, though.) Anything > else? > > Currently we do pass configure and then run into a compile failure > later on. It's definitely supposed to fail in configure. That's handled by the standard autoconf built-in check for X. Please try to figure out why it doesn't catch that case. -- Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org
Wine without X? Failing in dlls/winex11.drv
Trying to build Wine on a new tester which initially had too few packages installed I ran into the following. In file included from bitblt.c:33: x11drv.h:30:22: error: X11/Xlib.h: No such file or directory x11drv.h:31:27: error: X11/Xresource.h: No such file or directory x11drv.h:32:23: error: X11/Xutil.h: No such file or directory x11drv.h:33:23: error: X11/Xatom.h: No such file or directory x11drv.h:44:21: error: X11/Xmd.h: No such file or directory x11drv.h:45:24: error: X11/Xproto.h: No such file or directory Indeed include/config.h has HAVE_X11_XLIB_H undefined since, well, all these headers indeed are missing. On the other hand, configure did not halt. In fact, configure did not even warn about this situation unlike it does in other cases. How to fix this? Should dlls/winex11.drv just not be built in such a case? Should configure error out? (We do have --without-x, too, though.) Anything else? Currently we do pass configure and then run into a compile failure later on. Gerald
