How to use single modules? [was: libprinter.a .99 error ...?]

[Drew Parsons]

Egbert Eich wrote:
> Keith Packard writes:
>  > On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 19:18 +0200, Egbert Eich wrote:
>  > 
>  > >    - Since it is linked into a shared library anyway we can obtain its
>  > >      functionality by linking against this shared library.
>  > 
>  > This works fine and seems like the best method here as the code was
>  > already designed to be included in a shared library.
>  > 
>  > Is anyone having trouble with Xprt at this point? It should all be
>  > working now that it links against Xlib.
>  > 
> 
> I haven't seen any complains so far and also noone has brought up evidence
> yet that the memory footprint of Xprint has grown considerably compared
> to the version with Xrm.c code compiled in directly.

Hi, I'm the Debian package maintainer for Xprt.  I'm really glad to see
that the modularisation effort is coming along in leaps and bounds.

I'm sorry that I'm not really able to assist with the modularisation
effort directly. I would however be interested in testing that what
you've got for us builds and runs properly.

As I understand it, half of the point of modularisation is that I can
just do something like "cvs co xserver/xprt" (or "cvs co xserver" or
whatever needs to be done) to only grab the Xprt-specific code, without
the libs, fonts and other components not needed to build Xprt.  I'm
assuming the build will use an existing normal xlib installed in
/usr/X11R6/lib/ where required (this is your solution for the Xprt/Xrm
coupling, right?)

At the moment the instructions at
http://wiki.x.org/wiki/ModularDevelopersGuide#head-82b10fc32907632ac2ae033b283411161a861af6
refer to grabbing all of the modules together.  The symlink script is
designed to make all the symlinks for all the modules, rather than only
creating one module, correct?

Does this mean it is not currently possible to work with only one
module (in my case, for building Xprt only), or have I misunderstand
the situation?  Is splitting off the source modules into separate cvs
units something that will come later? Would it make sense for the
symlink script itself to be modularised to make this happen sooner?

Thanks,

Drew Parsons