Re: [PATCH] configure: enable udev backend as auto
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 06:22:44 +0100, Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote: Thanks for getting this tested; I'll give it a try before pushing it out, just to satisfy my curiosity. It still gives me no input devices when built from source. That's not OK. Something should be installing any necessary config files in xorg.conf.d. It seems like the right place for that is probably the evdev input driver. But, that means we need to resolve the issue with files in xorg.conf.d affecting the whole server configuration (see 20100322101224.ga12...@suse.de) -- keith.pack...@intel.com pgpROtehRDDFl.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
Re: [PATCH] configure: enable udev backend as auto
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote: On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 06:22:44 +0100, Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote: Thanks for getting this tested; I'll give it a try before pushing it out, just to satisfy my curiosity. It still gives me no input devices when built from source. That's not OK. Something should be installing any necessary config files in xorg.conf.d. It seems like the right place for that is probably the evdev input driver. But, that means we need to resolve the issue with files in xorg.conf.d affecting the whole server configuration (see 20100322101224.ga12...@suse.de) I think the patch there is good and has been tested to fix the issue. I'd just like to see it cleaned up a bit. Longer term, I want to see if there's a way to handle all the autoconfiguration immediately from xf86AutoConfig(). -- Dan ___ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
Re: [PATCH] configure: enable udev backend as auto
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:08:55AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: Due to the checks in configure, this means it gets priority over HAL if libudev is found. Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net --- Is it time yet to ring the bells on HAL? Fedora's been building with udev enabled for quite a while now and IIRC Debian for even longer. I think switching to udev as the default for 1.8 is a good idea. As long as Debian testing and Lucid or whatever are shipping a reasonable version of udev by then, sure. With that proviso -- Acked-by: Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org Cheers, Daniel pgpyqtfL67acf.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
Re: [PATCH] configure: enable udev backend as auto
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 04:06:30PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:08:55AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: Due to the checks in configure, this means it gets priority over HAL if libudev is found. Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net --- Is it time yet to ring the bells on HAL? Fedora's been building with udev enabled for quite a while now and IIRC Debian for even longer. I think switching to udev as the default for 1.8 is a good idea. As long as Debian testing and Lucid or whatever are shipping a reasonable version of udev by then, sure. With that proviso -- Acked-by: Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org well, if not they can still disable it when required. This only changes the _default_, HAL is still there anyway. I'd rather move off the fdi files as soon as possible. Cheers, Peter ___ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
Re: [PATCH] configure: enable udev backend as auto
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 16:06:30 +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:08:55AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: Due to the checks in configure, this means it gets priority over HAL if libudev is found. Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net --- Is it time yet to ring the bells on HAL? Fedora's been building with udev enabled for quite a while now and IIRC Debian for even longer. I think switching to udev as the default for 1.8 is a good idea. As long as Debian testing and Lucid or whatever are shipping a reasonable version of udev by then, sure. Debian unstable has been using (a previous version of) this code since January 7th, Debian testing since January 27th, and Ubuntu lucid since December 7th, AFAICT. Other than a couple of initial glitches (which got fixed upstream) it seems to be working fine. Cheers, Julien ___ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
Re: [PATCH] configure: enable udev backend as auto
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 02:27:40 +0100, Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote: Debian unstable has been using (a previous version of) this code since January 7th, Debian testing since January 27th, and Ubuntu lucid since December 7th, AFAICT. Other than a couple of initial glitches (which got fixed upstream) it seems to be working fine. Thanks for getting this tested; I'll give it a try before pushing it out, just to satisfy my curiosity. -- keith.pack...@intel.com pgpcyej0fFATA.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
[PATCH] configure: enable udev backend as auto
Due to the checks in configure, this means it gets priority over HAL if libudev is found. Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net --- Is it time yet to ring the bells on HAL? Fedora's been building with udev enabled for quite a while now and IIRC Debian for even longer. I think switching to udev as the default for 1.8 is a good idea. configure.ac |2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac index 92c34ab..6c18bbf 100644 --- a/configure.ac +++ b/configure.ac @@ -623,7 +623,7 @@ AC_ARG_ENABLE(multibuffer, AS_HELP_STRING([--enable-multibuffer], [Build Mult AC_ARG_ENABLE(dbe,AS_HELP_STRING([--disable-dbe], [Build DBE extension (default: enabled)]), [DBE=$enableval], [DBE=yes]) AC_ARG_ENABLE(xf86bigfont,AS_HELP_STRING([--disable-xf86bigfont], [Build XF86 Big Font extension (default: disabled)]), [XF86BIGFONT=$enableval], [XF86BIGFONT=no]) AC_ARG_ENABLE(dpms, AS_HELP_STRING([--disable-dpms], [Build DPMS extension (default: enabled)]), [DPMSExtension=$enableval], [DPMSExtension=yes]) -AC_ARG_ENABLE(config-udev,AS_HELP_STRING([--enable-config-udev], [Build udev support (default: no)]), [CONFIG_UDEV=$enableval], [CONFIG_UDEV=no]) +AC_ARG_ENABLE(config-udev,AS_HELP_STRING([--enable-config-udev], [Build udev support (default: auto)]), [CONFIG_UDEV=$enableval], [CONFIG_UDEV=auto]) AC_ARG_ENABLE(config-dbus,AS_HELP_STRING([--enable-config-dbus], [Build D-BUS API support (default: no)]), [CONFIG_DBUS_API=$enableval], [CONFIG_DBUS_API=no]) AC_ARG_ENABLE(config-hal, AS_HELP_STRING([--disable-config-hal], [Build HAL support (default: auto)]), [CONFIG_HAL=$enableval], [CONFIG_HAL=auto]) AC_ARG_ENABLE(xfree86-utils, AS_HELP_STRING([--enable-xfree86-utils], [Build xfree86 DDX utilities (default: enabled)]), [XF86UTILS=$enableval], [XF86UTILS=yes]) -- 1.6.6.1 ___ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
Re: [PATCH] configure: enable udev backend as auto
Peter Hutterer wrote: Due to the checks in configure, this means it gets priority over HAL if libudev is found. Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net --- Is it time yet to ring the bells on HAL? Fedora's been building with udev enabled for quite a while now and IIRC Debian for even longer. I think switching to udev as the default for 1.8 is a good idea. We're setting udev as default on Maemo 6 / MeeGo either. It saves a reasonable amount of memory when comparing with dbus + hal. Acked-by: Tiago Vignatti tiago.vigna...@nokia.com Cheers, Tiago ___ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
