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
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
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
[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
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
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
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
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 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.
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
[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
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
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 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
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 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
16 matches
Mail list logo
