SCO port update - what now?
kean at armory.com
Fri Jun 10 10:25:19 PDT 2005
> Hm, agh. Do you know which compilers these are?
Pretty much: !gcc :)
> glxinfo is a C program, not a C++ program. The only problem arises with
> broken linkers that do not properly link in libstdc++ to dependent
> libraries, but this is not glxinfo or imake's problem.
Ah. Fair enough. But if using SimpleCplusplusTarget makes the compile
more robust in the presense of such broken linkers, is there a
downside to using it? Some unintended side-effect? I know this may be
a trade-off between "correct" and "robust" but ... I usually tend to
prefer the latter to the former :)
> Just curious as to what the rationale was behind most of these -- it's
> really hard to try to make sense of a massive patch covering lots and
> lots of areas with only 'SCO port update' covering the entire thing.
Right. I think the ChangeLog entry would help a great deal. My
appologies for not preparing it at the same time as the patch.
I confess I was a *little* lazy. This was just a cvs diff of the
tree as I had it compiling on OSR5/OSR6/UW7. The vast majority of
it are genuine porting fixes but yes a few other minor buglets
I encountered along the way got fixed too. Sorry for not splitting
those out. I'll attach the ChangeLog to the bug in an hour or so.
That should make the patch analysis a bit easier.
More information about the xorg