SCO port update - what now?

[Daniel Stone]

On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 10:03:06AM -0700, Kean Johnston wrote:
> > 	* why was the AssembleObject change made?
> That one is becuase older make's (in fact, so far only GNU make seems
> to support it) do not allow $* in normal rules, only in inference rules.
> So you can use $* in a .c.o: rule but not in a normal rule.

Ah, right, I remember seeing this one before -- sorry.

> > 	* why was the zlib change made?
> Becuase not all (in fact many) compilers support #error, but not
> #warning. Thats a GCC-ism. Unless you are refering to the change in
> lbx_zlib_io.c, in which case, OSR5 has writev() and doesn't need lbx
> to provide it.

Hm, agh.  Do you know which compilers these are?

> > 	* the glxinfo change is wrong.
> Which one? There was one to an Imakefile, to not build glxinfo if
> GLU wasn't built, and one to use SimpleCplusplusProgramTarget instead
> of SimpleProgramTarget. I dont see how either of those is wrong, so
> can you tell me why they are?

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.

> > 	* why was the xdm/auth.c change made?
> Becuase it was completely duplicating code found in Xlibint, and doing
> a bad job of it. _XGetHostname() had all the same smarts, but xdm/auth.c
> and _XGetHostname were out of sync. So I reeuced it to call that other
> function instead of maintaining the same bits in two places.

Fair enough.

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.

Cheers,
Daniel
-------------- 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/20050611/d492ff5a/attachment.pgp>