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 <f.bridault AT fra.net>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: Updated X.org in devel; was: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64
- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 00:49:28 +0200
Le mercredi 06 avril 2005 à 23:16 +0200, Flavien Bridault a écrit :
> 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 ?
Ok, recompiled with nv module, works also like a charm, well done :-))
--
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
Flavien Bridault
Source Mage GNU/Linux - Disk Section Guru
irc: vlaaad
jabber: vlaaad AT amessage.be
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-
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,
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
- Re: Updated X.org in devel; was: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, Eric Sandall, 04/06/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.