Bug 1892 - [PATCH] linux.cf Debian section out of date, doesn't deal with libglide3 right, or external libs
Summary: [PATCH] linux.cf Debian section out of date, doesn't deal with libglide3 righ...
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: xorg
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Build/Monolithic (show other bugs)
Version: git
Hardware: All All
: high normal
Assignee: Xorg Project Team
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-11-22 10:25 UTC by Daniel Stone
Modified: 2006-03-04 12:57 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
i915 platform:
i915 features:

Attachments
large-ish patch (16.91 KB, patch)
2004-11-22 10:25 UTC, Daniel Stone 		no flags Details | Splinter Review
View All

Description Daniel Stone 2004-11-22 10:25:00 UTC 
Sorry for the rather large patch.

The Debian section in linux.cf is really woefully out of date, and should match
closer what we actually use -- so, this patch fixes that to match what we
actually use these days.

It also adds support for building without fonts and specs (if you just want to
do an architecture-specific build, mainly).

It also adds support for external Xrender/Xft/Xcursor libraries.

And it doesn't build tdfx unless glide3 is installed.  Bonus.
Comment 1 Daniel Stone 2004-11-22 10:25:18 UTC 
Created attachment 1333 [details] [review]
large-ish patch
Comment 2 Daniel Stone 2004-11-23 11:01:16 UTC 
Comment on attachment 1333 [details] [review]
large-ish patch

make roland less angry
Comment 3 Julien Lafon 2004-11-24 05:26:13 UTC 
Daniel, it would be a good idea if you could obmit the following offending section:

+/* Xprint should be banned from earth because:
+ * - it uses its own site.def file.
+ * - it doesn't respect that this is debian even if told so.
What do you mean here?

+ * - it uses its set of Imake Defines. (like if there are not enough around).
What do you mean here?

+ * - it is shipped outside already.
Isn't this history now as Xprint is again part of X.org?

+ * - people claims that it has GL support! how cool.. look here (from
xprint_site.def):
+ *   #define BuildGlxExt                    NO
This is wrong. Anything from the old Xprint tree has no GL support, only the new
version in the X.org tree supports this feature.

+ *   because the above isn't supported yet.
+ * - it builds (again???) BuildFreetype2Library and fonts???
+ * - a part of its license is not clear.
Please prove this claim. Everyone has commited all files under the MIT license
except files in xc/extras/ and claiming that there is something 'illegal' must
be proven and reported to the X.org board of directors ASAP. If you cannot prove
this claim remove it.
Thanks!
Comment 4 Daniel Stone 2004-11-24 05:44:25 UTC 
> Daniel, it would be a good idea if you could obmit the following offending > 
> section:

Apologies, I grabbed the general version instead of the vetted version of this
one.  Hooray for about fourteen source trees.

> +/* Xprint should be banned from earth because:
> + * - it uses its own site.def file.
> + * - it doesn't respect that this is debian even if told so.
> What do you mean here?

I am unclear; I didn't actually author this rant.

> + * - it uses its set of Imake Defines. (like if there are not enough around).
> What do you mean here?

See above.

> + * - it is shipped outside already.
> Isn't this history now as Xprint is again part of X.org?

I believe this stemmed from a misunderstanding, thinking that xprint.org was
still the canonical Xprint implementation.

> + * - people claims that it has GL support! how cool.. look here (from
> xprint_site.def):
> + *   #define BuildGlxExt                    NO
> This is wrong. Anything from the old Xprint tree has no GL support, only the new
> version in the X.org tree supports this feature.

Maybe 'xprint_site.def' is a clue as to comment #1?

> + *   because the above isn't supported yet.
> + * - it builds (again???) BuildFreetype2Library and fonts???
> + * - a part of its license is not clear.
> Please prove this claim. Everyone has commited all files under the MIT license
> except files in xc/extras/ and claiming that there is something 'illegal' must
> be proven and reported to the X.org board of directors ASAP. If you cannot prove
> this claim remove it.

Dude, stop being so hostile, please.  I suggest you review
http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2004/10/msg00025.html and the rest of that thread.

> Thanks!

You're welcome!
Comment 5 Adam Jackson 2005-10-23 12:50:35 UTC 
daniel, do we still care about reducing debian's monolith build diff?
Comment 6 Daniel Stone 2006-03-05 07:57:57 UTC 
(In reply to comment #5)
> daniel, do we still care about reducing debian's monolith build diff?

no!  oh joyous day. :)

Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.