<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8"> <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.26.0"> </HEAD> <BODY> On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 17:11 -0400, Writer, Tim wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <TT>Hmmm. I see a desire to build upstream Xorg from source and being an</TT> <TT>unsuspecting builder/newcomer as mutually exclusive. While this</TT> <TT>particular error message is a little opaque, the solution is straight</TT> <TT>forward and only an apt-get/yum/YaST, etc. away. I think most developers</TT> <TT>will have no trouble understanding that building 32-bit anything on a</TT> <TT>64-bit platform requires at least a basic 32-bit development</TT> <TT>environment. Once we have 32-bit builds working correctly on 64-bit</TT> <TT>systems, it would be useful to add the above error to a FAQ (is there a</TT> <TT>FAQ for xorg-driver-geode?) but what else can we do. Most (all?) Linux</TT> <TT>distributions are packaged this way, with separate 64-bit and 32-bit</TT> <TT>development environments. Even if we would prefer it another way, what</TT> <TT>can we reasonably do about it?</TT> </BLOCKQUOTE> I agree. Building on as many platforms as possible should not be a goal for geode. Because only a dozen or so out of the 240 xorg packages do not build on large number of platforms, some people don't know if it is a real build error and report problems. The patches I originally suggested were meant to address this low priority "feature". This seem to have resurrected past proposals which are outside my competencies. Bottom line, there is a requirement to build 32 bit driver on 64 bit host and this takes precedence. I am ok with aborting the config with some message to avoid bug report. There is still the second I mention to verify. </BODY> </HTML>