it to the book anyway. Until it
master copy gets regenerated, you can see it here:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~dnicholson/blfs-xfree86/x/xfree86.html
Here is what I got.
..
../../config/makedepend/makedepend: warning: /usr/include/gnu/stubs-32.h:
non
On 5/25/07, Lefteris Dimitroulakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Στις Friday 25 May 2007 19:21:26 ο/η Dan Nicholson έγραψε:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~dnicholson/blfs-xfree86/x/xfree86.html
I followed the above.
I don't think there are any differences, but I put it in the main
book
Στις Friday 25 May 2007 19:21:26 ο/η Dan Nicholson έγραψε:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~dnicholson/blfs-xfree86/x/xfree86.html
I followed the above.
Hmm. For me, it doesn't try to build in that directory at all. A
couple questions.
I checked my other build of XFree86-4.6.99.21
Στις Friday 25 May 2007 20:50:36 ο/η Dan Nicholson έγραψε:
OK. Yeah, make should never descend into that directory if you're
using the system freetype library.
Please allow me the time for a rebuild of XFree86.
I think I know what happened.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo
I can confirm now that everything is fine Dan
with XFree86-4.6.0 and the
XFree86-4.6.0-freetype_internals-1.patch.
Foolish me, I have sent host.def in xcbuild and not
in xc. My apologies:(
Lefteris
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
On 5/25/07, Lefteris Dimitroulakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can confirm now that everything is fine Dan
with XFree86-4.6.0 and the
XFree86-4.6.0-freetype_internals-1.patch.
Foolish me, I have sent host.def in xcbuild and not
in xc. My apologies:(
Great! Thanks for your help. I'll get
On 5/23/07, Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As noted other day on blfs-dev, XFree86 fails to build with anything
newer than freetype-2.1.10. Fortunately, some fixes were just
committed to the XFree86 CVS just this past week to fix things.
http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-dev
As noted other day on blfs-dev, XFree86 fails to build with anything
newer than freetype-2.1.10. Fortunately, some fixes were just
committed to the XFree86 CVS just this past week to fix things.
http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-dev/2007-May/017169.html
http://www.mail-archive.com
Anyone have XFree86 handy? I need to see if it builds the libs above
shared, static, or both. If nobody replies, I'll just go ahead and
build it tomorrow as I've been meaning to anyway. The reason I ask,
IIRC I should now combine the xorg patch with the motif patch for JDK
source build. It's
DJ Lucas wrote:
Has anyone tested against XFree86? I haven't. Xorg-6.9.0 is fine with
the new Mesa
No it isn't. The problem is that parts of Mesa that come with Xorg-6.9.0 are
still compiled statically into /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/extensions/libGLcore.so.
This file is used for indirect
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote:
Has anyone tested against XFree86? I haven't. Xorg-6.9.0 is fine
with the new Mesa
No it isn't. The problem is that parts of Mesa that come with Xorg-6.9.0
are still compiled statically into
/usr/X11R6/lib/modules/extensions/libGLcore.so
DJ Lucas wrote:
Well, one could drop it into the completed build tree and 'make
Everything', right?
I have never tried that either. Anyway, with the modular Xorg, the rebuild is
easy, and non-modular one will become permanently out-of-date (aka: dead)
upstream in a few days (when they
Has anyone tested against XFree86? I haven't. Xorg-6.9.0 is fine with
the new Mesa (it's only a tiny version change, I still tested), but I
don't know about XFree86-4.5.0. Also, what version ships with 4.6.0?
That dep was changed when the instructions were still in my homedirI
never
. Is there really any reason these
three can't be combined and merged with the X Window System Components
page? Then just move the X Components page before the Additional Config
page.
I don't have any problem with that, but I don't have any experience
with XFree86.
--
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org
In dividing the Xorg-7 instructions, I noticed (well I probably always
knew it was close) that all three packages have almost the same
post-install instructions. The exception is the installed program name
called for creating the config file. Is there really any reason these
three can't be
Ken Moffat wrote:
Do you mean 5.92 ? LFS-svn has been on 5.93 for a few weeks, and some
of the behaviour is definitely different between the two versions.
Yes, I'm a bit behind, I've been busy. 5.93 is fixed, the problem is
just with 5.92. It's been bugging me for weeks.
Andy
--
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:49:16 -0600
Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Staub wrote:
In the build instructions for Xorg and XFree86, it is recommended to
compile the lndir program and use it to create a shadow
directory of symbolic links where you will actually built the
package
Richard A Downing wrote:
So, in fact, if we obey our own rules and say 'Always unpack a fresh
copy of the source for each build': we don't need to do this.
Possibly, but it also shows a unique way of building in the spirit of
education.
-- Bruce
--
In the build instructions for Xorg and XFree86, it is recommended to
compile the lndir program and use it to create a shadow directory of
symbolic links where you will actually built the package. Why is this
done? Why not just a separate build dir? I think the BLFS book should
have more
Chris Staub wrote:
In the build instructions for Xorg and XFree86, it is recommended to
compile the lndir program and use it to create a shadow directory of
symbolic links where you will actually built the package. Why is this
done? Why not just a separate build dir? I think the BLFS book
On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 10:42 +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
ROX insists that filenames are UTF-8 encoded. This means either an UTF-8
locale or a deviation from POSIX (POSIX implies that filenames are
stored on disk in the locale encoding when it describes the tar
program). Such UTF-8
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Andrew Benton wrote these words on 10/16/05 12:30 CST:
About libXdamage, no, XFree86-4.5.0 doesn't install it.
Thanks for the info.
Gnome-mag will compile without it but it doesn't work.
Is this new? It used to work just fine when I was using XFree.
And it works
Andrew Benton wrote these words on 10/17/05 07:57 CST:
Sawfish obviously, and XFree86 as Bruce said. But as I've said before, I'd
like to see glib-1, gtk-1 and all the packages that depend on them removed.
Obviously that's going quite far, too far for many people, but we could make
steps
Randy McMurchy wrote:
I think XMMS is the one app that folks wanted to stay more than
any other. Even Bruce has said that one will stay. You are
persistent, aren't you? :-)
Well I did qualify it by saying perhaps, and you did say please...
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Please give examples.
--
Hi all,
If you have a current version of XFree86 installed, please check and
see if you have the libXdamage library installed in your X library
directory. Xorg installs the library, however, the GNOME Magnifier
instructions say that XFree does not (lists it as a dependency).
If the current
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
If you have a current version of XFree86 installed, please check and
see if you have the libXdamage library installed in your X library
directory. Xorg installs the library, however, the GNOME Magnifier
instructions say that XFree does not (lists
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
If you have a current version of XFree86 installed, please check and
see if you have the libXdamage library installed in your X library
directory. Xorg installs the library, however, the GNOME Magnifier
instructions say that XFree does
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 10/16/05 12:04 CST:
I think we should drop it now. I don't know of any any editors that use
it so it can be tested. I am willing to leave it in if there is a
compelling reason. If there is, please let me know.
Well, I think we should keep it until after the
Andrew Benton wrote these words on 10/16/05 12:30 CST:
About libXdamage, no, XFree86-4.5.0 doesn't install it.
Thanks for the info.
Gnome-mag will compile without it but it doesn't work.
Is this new? It used to work just fine when I was using XFree.
And it works just fine now with Xorg
Andrew Benton wrote:
There are plenty of other things that should be in BLFS. A peer to peer
application (Gtk-Gnutella) a GUI video editor (avi-demux) and the file
browser ROX
ROX insists that filenames are UTF-8 encoded. This means either an UTF-8
locale or a deviation from POSIX (POSIX
I see on /. that debisn sid is now using x.org. Is it time for us to
drop xfree86?
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Randy McMurchy wrote:
what is the harm in keeping it?
Just the effort of updating. We're current now, but when a new release
or patches become available, we need to build and test before updating
the book. If the demand for the package is not there, should we spend
that effort?
I'm just asking
on a faithful basis.
...There's always one. I use XFree86 because Xnest works properly. For me, when
I build xorg and gnome, if I log in a a different user in a nested window, the
gnome apps I run as that user don't work properly. The app that's on top stays
on top and I can't bring whatever's
33 matches
Mail list logo
