xc/programs considered harmful
bjdouma at xs4all.nl
Wed Dec 22 02:46:38 PST 2004
Recent writings as part of this lengthy discussion came on
Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 12:05:06PM +0100, when Egbert Eich wrote:
> Keith Packard writes:
> > Around 22 o'clock on Dec 17, Vladimir Dergachev wrote:
> > > This might provide an easy migration path - have xc as is, create new
> > > modules pointing to individual components (Xserver, fonts, library.
> > > programs) and gradually apply patches allowing components to build when
> > > checked out by themselves.
> > Unfortunately, to create viable stand-alone packages, you have to move
> > individual files around within the tree which breaks the Imake build
> > system. While it would be possible to both create a modular build
> > environment *and* maintain the monolithic build system using imake, it's a
> > tremendous additional burden on the development process, especially as that
> > would really need to guarantee perfect source and binary compatibility
> > independent of the build system across a wide variety of operating systems.
> > I don't believe we should waste people's time like this; we have few
> > enough developers as it is to consider spending years fixing duplicate
> > build systems.
> While preseving the Imake build system in its entirety would be extremely
> hard we need to maintain Imake for outside packages. Thefore this begs
> the question if the Imake build structure cannot be preserved in those
> parts where this is easily possible (like applications) at least until
> our customers feel comfortable about the transition.
I've been following this discussion with half an eye, since I'm
just joe average user, but some things struck me.
1. Modular tree and modular build are two different things, and
correct me if I'm wrong, isn't a modular build in theory
possible within a monolithic tree.
2. I am all for modularity, from the standpoint of joe average
user who nevertheless likes to compile things himself, compile
subparts of a larger project that have bug fixed etc.
E.g. I would like get xfixes fixes from cvs and just rebuild
that part without rebuiling the whole xorg tree.
3. Stop discussing this, modularization (I prospose "m12n" btw.)
is the way to go, even those that object seem to say "yes, but",
so start with moving out of the way but not junking them.
Here'a a point: I think that those who currently have the
"yes but" objection would be exactly the right people to be
given the task of making this m12n.
More information about the xorg