[Xorg] Reorganizing the xc/include directory
Eric Anholt
eta at lclark.edu
Fri May 14 11:19:03 PDT 2004
On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 10:13, Keith Packard wrote:
> The biggest difference between the monolithic build and the modular build
> is how the shared include files are managed. To successfully create a
> system which can build either way, we need to migrate from the current
> structure to one which can support both build systems.
>
> I think that's easy these days. I don't think the monolithic build refers
> to files from that directory when compiling stuff; instead, the files are
> "installed" during the 'make includes' phase into exports/include/X11
> where other parts of the system can find them.
>
> Given that, I suggest we create sub-directories within xc/include to hold
> each logical package of headers as seen in the modular build. We can then
> create new Imakefiles and get things building again. Once that's done, we
> can integrate the automake-based files into those same directories and get
> them also building that way.
>
> Does this make sense? Anyone see problems or have concerns with this?
I'm completely in favor of the modular build, and think that building it
within the xorg tree is a good idea. However, I hope that the header
packages get made a little more monolithic. Most of the space in the
*ext packages is taken up by the autotools stuff. If we had maybe two
sets of header packages -- xproto and xextensions (containing headers
not included by libXext, as well), tops, that would be great.
--
Eric Anholt eta at lclark.edu
http://people.freebsd.org/~anholt/ anholt at FreeBSD.org
More information about the xorg
mailing list