Re: [directfb-dev] [g-i] Issues with directfb input devices handling
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 05:56:08PM +0200, Denis Oliver Kropp wrote:
> Sven Luther schrieb:
> >On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 05:17:05PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> >>On Sat, Sep 30, 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
> >>>Also, if we want to get this solved, we need have an easy way for users
> >>>to
> >>>debug this issue, and "the other ways" you mentioned are not going to be
> >>>very
> >>>helpful in this.
> >> Would it be possible to simply take the libdirectfb-bin .deb and unpack
> >> it?
> >
> >It should be possible, and then wget the binaries.
> >
> >I still do believe that it would be lightyears more userfriendly to have
> >those
> >binaries in a .udeb, which can be included in the ramdisk while we are
> >investigating this issue, and later is available for install if one wants,
> >but
> >Frans has fear of bloating the archive or maybe just because it was me
> >proposing it. How big are those two binaries anyway ? a few tens of KBs ?
>
> dfbinfo is 8.8K
>
> dfbinfo: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for
> GNU/Linux 2.6.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux
> 2.6.0, stripped
so probably 10K or so on powerpc
> df_dok is 69K, but it also requires some images and loaders for PNG,
> JPEG, GIF, TTF.
Well, the images and loaders are most probably already present on the ramdisk
anyway. Those we care about at least ?
> So for simple graphics tests, as dfbinfo has no graphics, df_dok would
> be a huge "next step". You could use df_particle, which doesn't load any
> font or image, doesn't require additional DirectFB modules and is just
> 5.7K here in binary size. Unfortunately, it uses a lot of floating point
> and sin/cos IIRC.
So, at most we are speaking about a 100KB of binaries, and maybe 20KB if we
only go for df_particle ? Compared to a 10+ GB ramdisk, this is peanuts.
Are df_particle and df_dok in the same tarball as the main directfb stuff ?
the debian libdirectfb-bin .deb package has only the dfb* binaries.
> >But anyway, our mighty leader has spoken, there is nothing a poor outcast
> >like
> >me can do about this, and this kind of stuff is clearly not very motivating
> >for me to help solve issues, i hope others will jump in.
>
> I think at least dfbinfo is mandatory in a system with a shell. It's the
> standard diagnostic tool of DirectFB, like xdpyinfo for X11.
Yeah, but this is out of my power, and i will probably already be blamed for
what i have said so far :/
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: