Disable xterm and XRX builds per default / [Fwd: CVS Update: xc (branch: trunk)]

[Daniel Stone]

On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:14:48AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> If we're just going to go disable by default in the core tree
> the sections we don't need in our distributions, then I can go
> in and disable DRI & Mesa for everyone?   We don't build those
> in our Xorg builds for Solaris, so why should I care what
> everyone else needs?
> 
> (Yes, I know how stupid it sounds, but that's how the "We don't
> build xrx, so I'm disabling it for everyone" sounds to me.)

Point taken, but I think the relative usages of DRI vs XRX would be interesting
as a case in point. ;)

> For the stuff that's coming from upstream, while I would have
> preferred to see at least some discussion first, I think at a
> minimum it's incomplete until the build docs are updated to
> clearly explain what's required, where to get the preferred
> upstream source, and how to enable the embedded versions if
> that's desired.  At least something to try to prevent the confusion
> we've had in the past with upstream version mismatches and
> people not being able to compile when their copies of the libraries
> aren't installed in the right places.   (Yes, this is one thing
> autoconf handles much better than Imake, since it can test and
> warn when dependencies aren't found, instead of just making
> assumptions and failing in less obvious ways when they're not
> met.)

If this is a document you really desire, I can write it up in about ten minutes,
but would be desirous of sleep first; I'm not sure how to write it to include
advice on avoiding version collision hell with external versions since there is
no way to actually deal with this at all, however.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20050125/68d59668/attachment.pgp>