sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
Re: Updated X.org in devel; was: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64
- From: Flavien Bridault <flavien.bridault AT free.fr>
- To: sm-discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: Updated X.org in devel; was: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64
- Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 23:16:00 +0200
Le mercredi 06 avril 2005 à 13:37 -0500, sergey AT optimaltec.com a écrit :
> Actually, I was about to ask for volunteers. Could somebody *not* on 64-bit
> platform test the today's xorg spell from devel grimoire? As the HISTORY
> says,
> it's creating a dynamic server (that loads shared object files) that uses
> libc's loader (standard loader used in Linux) rather than X's own loader
> (which
> will probably be deprecated sometime).
> If you have binary ATI or NVIDIA drivers, please test with and without
> those,
> separately.
> Thank you!
>
> Quoting Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>:
>
> > Quoting sergey AT optimaltec.com:
> > <snip>
> > > I probably had some component enabled that you didn't have. My build
> > process
> > > complained about unlinkable relocation types that happen if PIC option
> > > is
> > > removed (as it was in xorg). Now, I'm testing xorg with PIC and glibc
> > loader
> > > instead of X's own module loader (MakeDllmodules YES). From wiki.x.org,
> > this
> > > appears to be preferred configuration now.
> >
> > If that works for you should the other archs test and see about moving to
> > the
> > "new" method?
>
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
>
Compiled here, and works fine with module nvidia.
I'm very sorry but I forgot to change my host.def to compile nv module.
I will try again to compile it with nv module, to see if it works.
Oh, I almost forgot, I saw a strange message right at the end of
installation, just the line before compile log creation :
cp: cannot stat
`programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/linux/drm/kernel/*.ko': No such
file or directory
Is it serious, doctor ?
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64
, (continued)
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 04/06/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
sergey, 04/06/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 04/06/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, sergey, 04/06/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 04/06/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
sergey, 04/06/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
David Michael Leo Brown Jr., 04/05/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
David Kowis, 04/05/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, sergey, 04/06/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
sergey, 04/06/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
Eric Sandall, 04/06/2005
-
Updated X.org in devel; was: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
sergey, 04/06/2005
- Re: Updated X.org in devel; was: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, Flavien Bridault, 04/06/2005
-
Re: Updated X.org in devel; was: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
Flavien Bridault, 04/06/2005
-
Re: Updated X.org in devel; was: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
Flavien Bridault, 04/06/2005
- Re: Updated X.org in devel; was: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 04/06/2005
- Re: Updated X.org in devel; was: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, Eric Sandall, 04/06/2005
- Re: Updated X.org in devel; was: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 04/06/2005
- Re: Updated X.org in devel; was: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, Eric Sandall, 04/07/2005
- Re: Updated X.org in devel; was: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, sergey, 04/07/2005
- Re: Updated X.org in devel; was: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, Eric Sandall, 04/07/2005
- Re: Updated X.org in devel; was: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, Eric Sandall, 04/07/2005
- Re: Updated X.org in devel; was: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, sergey, 04/08/2005
-
Re: Updated X.org in devel; was: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
Flavien Bridault, 04/06/2005
-
Updated X.org in devel; was: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
sergey, 04/06/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
Eric Sandall, 04/06/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
David Kowis, 04/05/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 04/06/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.