On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:11:10PM -0700, Brian Paul wrote:
I'm willing to bet that there's around 100 header files in the XFree86
tree that get pulled into the compilation of the various DRI-related
source files.
Determining what to keep and what to discard would be a long process.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 09:46:35PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
...
If the goal is to make the DRI CVS as small as possible, why not go all
the way and turn it into an environment for building only the DRI-related
modules? That would change the nature of XFree86 merges quite a bit,
but that
Philip Brown wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 09:46:35PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
...
If the goal is to make the DRI CVS as small as possible, why not go all
the way and turn it into an environment for building only the DRI-related
modules? That would change the nature of XFree86 merges quite a
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:11:10PM -0700, Brian Paul wrote:
Philip Brown wrote:
That definately sounds like the Right Thing To Do.
Easier said than done.
I'm willing to bet that there's around 100 header files in the XFree86
tree that get pulled into the compilation of the various
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 04:32:03PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Don, 2002-11-07 at 16:56, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Michel Dänzer wrote:
These no longer get built by default. Any objections against the
attached patch?
Actually if they're not built, I think we should ditch
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 03:13:30PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
These no longer get built by default. Any objections against the
attached patch?
Is there any reason to ? Have we patched/changed these at all from
the standard 4.2.0 base ?
Alan.
On Don, 2002-11-07 at 16:01, Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 03:13:30PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
These no longer get built by default. Any objections against the
attached patch?
Is there any reason to ? Have we patched/changed these at all from
the standard 4.2.0 base ?
Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 03:13:30PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
These no longer get built by default. Any objections against the
attached patch?
Is there any reason to ? Have we patched/changed these at all from
the standard 4.2.0 base ?
When I bring Mesa 5.0 into CVS
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 04:09:44PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Don, 2002-11-07 at 16:01, Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 03:13:30PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
These no longer get built by default. Any objections against the
attached patch?
Is there any reason to ?
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 08:17:06AM -0700, Brian Paul wrote:
Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 03:13:30PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
These no longer get built by default. Any objections against the
attached patch?
Is there any reason to ? Have we patched/changed these at all
Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 08:17:06AM -0700, Brian Paul wrote:
Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 03:13:30PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
These no longer get built by default. Any objections against the
attached patch?
Is there any reason to ? Have we
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 03:56:46PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Michel Dänzer wrote:
These no longer get built by default. Any objections against the
attached patch?
Actually if they're not built, I think we should ditch them from cvs.
We're not working on them.
Now that sound like a
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 04:32:03PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Don, 2002-11-07 at 16:56, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Michel Dänzer wrote:
These no longer get built by default. Any objections against the
attached patch?
Actually if they're not built, I think we should
On Don, 2002-11-07 at 17:38, Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 04:32:03PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Don, 2002-11-07 at 16:56, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Michel Dänzer wrote:
These no longer get built by default. Any objections against the
attached
On Don, 2002-11-07 at 18:04, Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 05:48:22PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Don, 2002-11-07 at 17:38, Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 04:32:03PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Don, 2002-11-07 at 16:56, Keith
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 09:16:49AM -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 05:04:41PM +, Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 05:48:22PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Don, 2002-11-07 at 17:38, Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 04:32:03PM +, Keith
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 05:26:40PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Don, 2002-11-07 at 16:56, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Michel Dänzer wrote:
These no longer get built by default. Any objections against the
attached patch?
Actually if they're not built, I think we should ditch them from
On Thu, 2002-11-07 at 09:04, Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 05:48:22PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
Anyway, back to the point of my patch: even in the context of the
XFree86 tree, does it make sense only to build these libraries when all
libraries are built, even if the user
18 matches
Mail list logo
