[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#673837: Bug#673839: Building an udeb binary

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 21:21:47 +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:

> Le 21/05/2012 21:17, Cyril Brulebois a écrit :
> >That means more udebs, more stuff in the d-i image/initramfs. I'm not
> >sure it's worth the trouble. Quite the contrary, in fact.
> >
> >It looks to me like a separate build is better as far as d-i is concerned.
> How "costy" would those udeb be? Those are small libraries...
> Having to rebuild gtk has a cost as well, not only it increases the
> build time for it quite a lot, it also means the code build is using
> mostly untested codepaths (they are very few users or distributions
> trying to not use those xorg libraries)
I'm willing to maintain those code paths, if that's all it takes.
FWIW the X server in the installer doesn't even support composite.  I
can see how adding libXdamage might make some sense.  I don't think
adding randr would, since we use the fbdev driver.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: