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: sergey AT optimaltec.com
- To: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
- Cc: 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, 7 Apr 2005 10:41:50 -0500
I'm not enthusiastic about making this thing optional because we never
actually
had a static server. What the spell was doing is removing "-fPIC -DPIC" from
C*FLAGS and that's it. It doesn't lead to static server being built, which I
found out the hard way on AMD64. So, in order to truly make an option of
dynamic vs static X server, I have to do more research in the non-existent X
documentation and on the 'net.
Quoting Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>:
> Quoting "Sergey A. Lipnevich" <sergey AT sourcemage.org>:
> > That's why I am integrating this into /test/ grimoire. The built-in
> > drivers appear to work.
> > I'm hoping to get feedback on binary drivers this way.
> > I'm ready to create an option if one is needed, but not before I find
> > out about this need. Two things are the reson:
> > 1. the X's loader was mimicking the libc's one anyway;
> > 2. Xorg wants to move to a much more modular structure, so the pressure
> > to use standard loader is only going to increase.
>
> I just noticed that now when I exit X, my framebuffer is messed up (black
> with
> thin, colored, slightly vertical lines through it and part of the prior X
> screen displaying). I'll revert to the old X and see if it goes away again.
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64
, (continued)
-
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,
sergey, 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, 04/06/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.