Re: Towards X11-based d-i: v2, progress report
On Thursday 25 February 2010, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> * udev: The previous patch set wasn't really good indeed. [...]
> (I'm not sure we should name it udev-gtk-udeb since
> there's nothing gtk-related in there, it'd rather be X11-related,
> but frankly, I don't care. :))
I chose -gtk as it will be used with the gtk frontend and is consistent
with e.g. rootskel-gtk. But other names are certainly possible and the
final name will need to be agreed with Marco.
> * gtk+2.0: Julien's patch against its configure.in did the trick and
> a few X libraries got dropped: libxcomposite1, libxdamage1,
> libxfixes3, libxrandr2.
That's excellent!
> That means fewer udebs to add (although libxfixes3 is still pulled by
> libxcursor1), which is what we tried to achieve.
If that's the only thing that pulls it in, would it be an option to compile
it statically?
Reply to: