Re: m68k buildd's without 1.5GB of free disk should not attempt xfree86

[John Lenton <john@vialibre.org.ar>]

On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 01:26:32PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> JL> I don't know XDirectFB, but the kdrive servers are probably
> JL> better served being compiled against a uclibc (yes they compile
> JL> cleanly against the newer uclibcs). Unless the idea is to use
> JL> Xvesa as a failsafe X server for intel. Else what's the point?
> 
> I do see Xvesa as a failsafe alternative to the stock servers, and I
> would like to see it used in graphic installs.  However, I agree that
> to some people Xvesa may also be useful as a single-floppy X server,
> and I think it's a good idea to build it against uclibc by default.

That's more or less my point: compile it against uclibc, be it
dynamic for a graphic install (busybox in installs is being
compiled against uclibc), or static for a truly failsafe server
(and small: a statically linked Xvesa against uclibc is well
below the 1MB mark) Howerver, I repeat that xvesa is intel-only;
the kdrive fbdev server would be the equivalent on non-intel. I
don't suggest the fbdev one for intel because the vesa one is
vesa 1, i.e. vbe, afaik, so it works in lots of places where
vesafb doesn't. Heck, it works in places where XFree86's vesa
driver doesn't, even on some twisted videoboards that don't even
work with their original (windows) dirvers.

Now, putting the burden of an uclibc build environment on branden
is _not_ something I'm willing to even think about trying to
start to suggest.

-- 
John Lenton (john@vialibre.org.ar) -- Random fortune:
La libertad es aquella facultad que aumenta la utilidad de todas las demás facultades.
		-- Kant. (1724-1804).