Modularization proposal approved

[Daniel Stone]

On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 12:14:24PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> Well I'm interested in the using automake vs not-using automake,

It's much easier.  You don't have to care about specific compiler or
linker quirks on particular architectures when doing shared libraries
or whatever (with the libdl-based loader, Xorg does some nice tricks
with -rdynamic, so loaded modules can call back into the main server
binary).  Although Mesa seems to have this largely sorted.

> pkg-config vs not using pkg-config,

Again, just ease of use.  You don't have to specify
--with-xproto-dir=whatever or some other crack everywhere; you just make
sure PKG_CONFIG_PATH is set accordingly, and *everything* just works.
It's really, really cool.

> not creating GNU make specific
> files,

I don't think this even a question -- I thought it was resolved that
we'd always use portable Makefiles, and that autotools gave us this
anyway?

> options that should be given to the tools etc to do certain
> things.. etc..

As for the options, my opinion isn't worth any more than the next guy's,
nor do I honestly particularly care what they're named.  Unless the
option to enable Composite turns out to be
--with-coopers-frobnicator-beware-of-the-leopard.  But I think we have
bigger problems if that gets through, though.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-modular/attachments/20050418/91d69c7e/attachment-0001.pgp