dead code in build.sh?

[Keith Packard]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:17:51 -0600, Matt Dew <matt at osource.org> wrote:

> Would I be burned in effigy if I asked about:

Yes.

> 1) just moving the build system away from autotools to cmake

cmake isn't nearly as flexible as autotools, and requires that cmake be
present on the build system to build tarballs. Plus, it doesn't reduce
the steps needed to build the system, just (purports) to make the
maintenance of the build system easier.

> 2) having Kconfig for Xorg like the linux kernel has

Kconfig is all about optional bits of code, which we have a limited
amount of (and most desktop users shouldn't be adjusting these
anyway). Autotools is all about detecting system characteristics, which
Kconfig (happily) doesn't have to deal with at all.

> 3) auto generated nightly tarballs for all the modules

Binary tarballs? Source tarballs? If the former, they wouldn't be useful
for most people, the latter isn't significantly different from git clone
&& ./autogen.sh

> 4) then pitching build.sh,x-jhbuild,  and all the other 'official'
> build scripts

As you know, my goal is to reduce the number of modules needed to run
'current' code to a small enough number that almost any script would
suffice. If we get the protocol headers merged together, then to build
current X server bits, you'd need:

 1) protocol headers
 2) X server source
 3) libdrm source
 4) evdev source
 5) synaptics source (maybe)
 6) mesa source
 7) video driver source

It seems like reducing the length of this list is about the best thing
we can do to help people get current bits on their machines.

-- 
keith.packard at intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20100920/71ff043c/attachment.pgp>