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 th
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 t
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.
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 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
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 export
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 expor
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 b
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
[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
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
[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 i
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 alte
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 alt
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 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 XDire
Hi guys,
You admins of buildd's without about a gig and a half of free disk space
for autobuilding should set xfree86 to "weak_no_autobuild" or whatever
the jargon is that means "don't grab xfree86 off the stack on your own
initiative".
XFree86 was always huge but now it's huger thanks to the sta
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. Els
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 XDir
Hi guys,
You admins of buildd's without about a gig and a half of free disk space
for autobuilding should set xfree86 to "weak_no_autobuild" or whatever
the jargon is that means "don't grab xfree86 off the stack on your own
initiative".
XFree86 was always huge but now it's huger thanks to the st
20 matches
Mail list logo
