xserver build failling AFTER it works ??

Chuck Robey chuckr at telenix.org
Mon Jul 14 10:21:45 PDT 2008

Hash: SHA1

Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-07-13 at 09:28 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 7:51 AM, Chuck Robey <chuckr at telenix.org> wrote:
>>> The comment about it being "no official script other than build.sh" strikes me
>>> as funny ... something like asking a bank robber if they like stealing, and
>>> having them answer "no, of course not ... well, excepting this robbery, of
>>> course".  That's somewhat of an extreme simile, sorry, it's the only one that
>>> ocurred to me at the moment.  I am talking about replacing build.sh, so saying
>>> "we don't do that, except for build.sh" is just a bit on the droll side.  I
>>> mean, I'm /talking/ /about/ replacing build.sh with a far better tool, one that
>>> would be far simpler to fix if it got broken, and be able to do it without
>>> making a single change in your modularization strategy..
>> I don't see what's so hard to understand. build.sh _is_ the official
>> script. It has shortcomings and it could use somebody fixing those
>> shortcomings. Or, like Daniel and Peter both have said, if you think a
>> make-based solution would be better, send it in. You keep saying how
>> much better a make-based build would be and how you would work on it.
>> No one has told you not to do that.
> FWIW, there already is a make based build system:
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10511
> Not sure about its current status though.

I'd love to have such a system, but at least at first blush, this doesn't seem
to be it,  Why:

does it have any instructions to run it?

If it were well enough engineered to just run, then running a simple "make"
would work, but it doesn't.  At the the very least, print a "usage", huh?

There's a C file included, but doing a "make conv_deps" fails with a ton of
errors.  I dunno, it probably builds if done the right way, but then one should
probably have make the Makefile do the right thing to begin with (it's not all
that hard to do).

So, it either needs a better makefile, or more docs ... question: does it
correctly detect what needs to be rebuilt, automatically, or does it make you
manually enter what to build next?   A correctly built make should either print
it's own docs, or come with a README.  I haven't really any idea if, after the
start-up docs, if it does what I want, or not.

If it's the tool I was asking for, you could do just a tiny bit better of a job
advertising that, I don't want to program it if it already exists, but this does
no part of the job of convincing me of it.  You couldn't ask for a more willing
audience, really.
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the xorg mailing list