Disable xterm and XRX builds per default / [Fwd: CVS Update: xc (branch: trunk)]

[Adam Jackson]

On Monday 24 January 2005 13:31, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 10:25:03AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
> > Around 4 o'clock on Jan 25, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > Point taken, but I think the relative usages of DRI vs XRX would be
> > > interesting as a case in point. ;)
> >
> > Relative use is irrelevant.  X.org is the canonical upstream source for
> > xrx, and so downloading the X.org bits should build it by default.
> >
> > When DRI can be built directly from the Mesa tree, we should disable
> > building that in the X.org tree by default.
>
> I respectfully disagree.  I believe that we should *allow* building of that
> for which we are the upstream source, and do our best (within reasonable
> limits) to ensure that we don't gratuitiously break it, but I think the
> default install should err on the side of sanity.  I don't think installing
> xrx by default is sane, and it's all well and good to have it there and
> keep it working, but I don't see any merit whatsoever in building and
> installing it per default.
>
> AIUI, building DRI from Mesa can basically be done today.

Very close.  GLcore still needs Mesa source to build (and possibly the 
darwin/cygwin ports too), but all the client-side bits can be done in Mesa 
already.  Also both Mesa and X need to switch to using /lib/libdrm.so

I _will_ remove Mesa from extras/ once I have a solution for GLcore, 
regardless of any m12n consensus.  I suspect I'll do the same for 
programs/glx* since Mesa is their upstream home.

- ajax
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20050124/996293f1/attachment.pgp>