Re: Suggestion
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:16:40AM -0100, Sven Heyll wrote:
> Hi,
>
> why not splitting the xfree86-server package, so that the drm/dri stuff
> is in an extra package and can be compiled before installing. Dri
> modules have to be
> compiled with the corresponding drm version, which is provided by the
> kernel.
> I have kernel 2.4.0test6 and the X binarys forbid me to use dri.
> I tried to compile (apt-get source xlib6g(or what ever) --compile)
> X by myself, but this failed because of missing glide librarys. I dont
> see the reason why
> one would have to recompile whole X only to get DRI working. So one
> possible solution
> would be, that there is a
> default DRI package, available also in binary version and compiled for
> the current debian
> kernel, or to let the user choose, during install of the binarypackage
> to get and compile
> and install the source package. This could be done after a test for the
> kernel version.
And, of course, it could be setup as a make-kpkg module package (like
alsa-source. But:
It's not the compiled code which has to match between DRI and DRM,
just the interface. I'm using a DRM module compiled along with my
2.4.0-test8 kernel just fine with the precompiled mga.so and mga_dri.so
which came in the X packages. After all, it all goes through a /dev/
interface - if the compilation had to match, then you'd have to recompile
*all* your binaries whenever you recompile your kernel, and that makes
absolutely no sense whatsoever.
And since DRM is already distributed as part of the kernel, there's really
no point in putting it in a separate package. :)
> Also very interresting, the mesa package (xlibmesa3) must also be
> "compileable" whitout
> compiling the whole X.
Why? xlibmesa3 is part of the X server. It's based on Mesa, but it's not
Mesa.
> Maybe this causes the need for a virtual package which containts a
> script that interactivly generates
> the right configfiles and installs them in the source directoy of X
> parts( like mesa, dri ...).
> This package contains debian specific config file
> templates ("xc/config/.../host.def" ... etc) and
> perl script may ask you quesations like "Do you have a < ...> card
> ?" "Should <...> be activated ?" etc
> very simple and basic.
Isn't the current X server autodetection stuff good enough? I'm sure
there'll eventually be (if there isn't already) XF86Setup for XFree 4,
which will let people graphically mangle their conffiles once again...
--
Joshua Shagam /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
joshagam@cs.nmsu.edu \ / No HTML/RTF in email
www.cs.nmsu.edu/~joshagam X No Word docs in email
/ \ Respect for open standards
Reply to: