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: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
- 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, 7 Apr 2005 08:51:03 -0700
Quoting sergey AT optimaltec.com:
> 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.
All I'm saying is that the alterations to host.def you made may need to be
optional if they break, or even regress, on some machines. X.org may be
wanting
to use this method in the future and deprecating the old X loader, but if the
X
loader works better and is safer than we should probably stick to that by
default.
Having said that, I haven't yet reverted my X to the "old" way to see if that
fixes my problem or if maybe I screwed something else up. :)
-sandalle
--
Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric AT sandall.us PGP: 0xA8EFDD61 | http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/ | SysAdmin @ Inst. Shock Physics @ WSU
http://counter.li.org/ #196285 | http://www.shock.wsu.edu/
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64
, (continued)
-
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: 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.