AW: Improving Xorg
airlied at gmail.com
Thu Jun 29 03:23:42 PDT 2006
> Not even that, I'd be happy enough, just if the provided build scripts (for a complete build) came close to "matching reality".
> But nothing works, not even the tar archives have the same name, as the script is looking for.
> It's two weeks ago, so ask me for details and I'm well willing to reproduce the whole scenario, for being able to provide precise details.
> When I fixed those things by hand, configure took years for every of the subfolders.
> The modularization means heavily increasing the costs to build (time).
> Then this and that and whatever failed every few minutes.
> I believe (not sure) even a selfbuilt utility used for the build was segfaulting and therefore breaking the build yet another time.
> I'm not only confused, but also disappointed from the modular thing (7.0 and 7.1).
> But it looks like Alan Cox doesn't appreciate my comments, indirectly calling me something near to a troll.
> So I may switch back to XFree86 in the end, where all the sparc folks still reside and produce, other than here.
You could perhaps fix X.org to build on solaris sparc, I don't think
anyone else here had tried to do this yet, it builds on Linux Sparc
I'm nearly sure as someone here cared about it I assume, we aren't
XFree86 we have a different direction, and one of those is we aren't
going to hold back X.org waiting for other architectures/OSes to catch
up, if you enjoy building XFree86 and you enjoy using their
implementation of X, then please do so we are not forcing you to use
X.org, however we are endeavouring to move X.org forward not back.
And what Alan pointed out was your rant to that slightly misdirected
mail about the MS thing, when someone mails an x.org mailing list with
a query and gets a rant from someone who has posted once to the list
before it gives a bad view of the X.org community as a whole.
More information about the xorg