On 17 September 2011 01:53, Alan Coopersmith
alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote:
On 09/16/11 01:54, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
On Sep 15, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Gaetan Nadon wrote:
A bonus would be a list of drivers that do use pciaccess (maybe not in
the commit text!). A complete list of drivers
Hello,
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 11:59:29 -0400
Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
Where's the SGI O2's video driver? It's still not hosted on FDO. I
thought that was one reason you were getting commit access.
cvs://anoncvs.netbsd.org/xsrc/external/mit/xf86-video-crime ;)
Day job and other stuff
Hello,
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 16:55:47 +0100
Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org wrote:
Hi,
On 17 September 2011 02:36, Michael macallan1...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:13:10 -0400
Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should simply maintain the drivers we care about.
On 18 September 2011 03:20, Michael macallan1...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Sure, I'll get there eventually ;)
There are some new drivers too ( for old hardware though ) which for now are
kinda NetBSD-specific ( I made no real attempt to keep
- xf86-video-crime, for the SGI O2. Register and
Hello,
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 15:56:25 +0200
Michal Suchanek hramr...@centrum.cz wrote:
On 18 September 2011 03:20, Michael macallan1...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Sure, I'll get there eventually ;)
There are some new drivers too ( for old hardware though ) which for now
are kinda
Hello,
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:13:10 -0400
Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
Which goes back to another question raised at XDC - is it time to start
dropping support for video drivers the way we have for input drivers?
rendition is one of my favorite examples there - it's so old that
Hi,
On 17 September 2011 02:36, Michael macallan1...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:13:10 -0400
Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should simply maintain the drivers we care about. I'll try
to keep -glint going. For other drivers without any sort of
maintainer, I don't
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Michael macallan1...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:13:10 -0400
Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
Which goes back to another question raised at XDC - is it time to start
dropping support for video drivers the way we have for input
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Michael macallan1...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 11:59:29 -0400
Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
Where's the SGI O2's video driver? It's still not hosted on FDO. I
thought that was one reason you were getting commit access.
On Sep 15, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Gaetan Nadon wrote:
A bonus would be a list of drivers that do use pciaccess (maybe not in
the commit text!). A complete list of drivers can be found in build.sh.
Here's a complete list of modules which didn't contain the links *BEFORE* my
change:
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 03:54 -0500, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
On Sep 15, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Gaetan Nadon wrote:
A bonus would be a list of drivers that do use pciaccess (maybe not
in
the commit text!). A complete list of drivers can be found in
build.sh.
Here's a complete list of modules
On 09/16/11 01:54, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
On Sep 15, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Gaetan Nadon wrote:
A bonus would be a list of drivers that do use pciaccess (maybe not in
the commit text!). A complete list of drivers can be found in build.sh.
Here's a complete list of modules which didn't contain
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Alan Coopersmith
alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote:
On 09/16/11 01:54, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
On Sep 15, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Gaetan Nadon wrote:
A bonus would be a list of drivers that do use pciaccess (maybe not in
the commit text!). A complete list of
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 20:17:41 -0500, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
Every module building against xorg-server does not *Require* pixman nor
libpciaccess. If such modules need pixman or pciaccess, they should be
depending on them directly rather than inheriting a dependency from
xorg-server.
On Sep 15, 2011, at 2:58 AM, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 20:17:41 -0500, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
Every module building against xorg-server does not *Require* pixman nor
libpciaccess. If such modules need pixman or pciaccess, they should be
depending on them directly
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 03:20:02 -0500, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
On Sep 15, 2011, at 2:58 AM, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 20:17:41 -0500, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
Every module building against xorg-server does not *Require* pixman nor
libpciaccess. If such modules
Every module building against xorg-server does not *Require* pixman nor
libpciaccess. If such modules need pixman or pciaccess, they should be
depending on them directly rather than inheriting a dependency from
xorg-server.
The thing is, most video drivers *do* need pixman and pciaccess,
On Sep 15, 2011, at 3:30 AM, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 03:20:02 -0500, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
Wouldn't it be nice if the servers that we cared about were in the
xorg-server tree itself, so I could try building with these changes on a
linux machine to see what broke.
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 20:17 -0500, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
Every module building against xorg-server does not *Require* pixman nor
libpciaccess. If such modules need pixman or pciaccess, they should be
depending on them directly rather than inheriting a dependency from
xorg-server.
This
On 09/15/11 04:41 AM, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
Actually, it looks like a bunch of drivers are not linking correctly to begin
with, and nobody seems so have cared.
The Solaris linker does, and I've long added a bunch of libraries to my
LDFLAGS for each driver on Solaris. If we're now
Every module building against xorg-server does not *Require* pixman nor
libpciaccess. If such modules need pixman or pciaccess, they should be
depending on them directly rather than inheriting a dependency from
xorg-server.
This also moves pixman-1 to Requires.private, so CPPFLAGS is set right
21 matches
Mail list logo
