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

[Keith Whitwell]

Keith Packard wrote:
> Around 5 o'clock on Jan 25, Daniel Stone wrote:
> 
> 
>>I respectfully disagree.  I believe that we should *allow* building of that for
>>which we are the upstream source, and do our best (within reasonable limits) to
>>ensure that we don't gratuitiously break it, but I think the default install
>>should err on the side of sanity.
> 
> 
> If there was a separate xrx package that people could download and build, 
> I would agree with you -- the 'default' X.org distribution might not want 
> to include that piece.  Given that there is not such a package, this makes 
> the X.org distribution the canonical source for this software.  Having 
> software which is not built by its canonical source seems a bit strange to 
> me.
> 
> Similarly, we ship and build Composite, Damage and XFixes by default, but 
> we don't expect huge numbers of people to ever use them (at least not in 
> their current state).
> 
> If the default installation of xrx exposes the machine to significant 
> potential problems (as Composite does by regularly crashing X servers), 
> then we should fix that.
> 
> 
>>AIUI, building DRI from Mesa can basically be done today.
> 
> 
> Ajax says "almost".  I can't wait.

Note that this refers to the clientside code, libGL.so, *_dri.so, etc.

It doesn't refer to any of the serverside stuff, especially not the 
software indirect renderer which is built into (I think) dri.a and which 
contains basically the whole mesa source tree.  The right way to remove 
this last dependency is to get indirect rendering handled (one way or 
another) by the hardware acclerated clientside code.

Ajax has just posted a bug about Mesa's 'make install' behaviour.  Is 
there anything else people see as gating on this?

Keith