Re: Future direction of Debian XFree86 packaging (was: 4.3.0 progress / desire to help)
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 12:43:46AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 04:14:27PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 12:04:22AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > I don't want to merge something that turns out to be a complete useless
> > > lemon.
> >
> > It will not, because i can then build a driver only package directly out
> > of the X CVS trunk drivers module without needing a full X build and 4
> > Go of disk space i don't have. This would make it easier for our user to
> > upgrade their driver for new cards without needing a fully new X server
> > package which may or may not come in acceptable time. I had the
> > intention of uploading and maintaining such a debian package, but
> > without the SDK it requires the full source tree.
>
> It may work, but it may not; that's what I'm saying. As you've said, the
> SDK has quite a few problems. I really want to give it a spin myself;
> failing that, I suppose I'll just have to merge it and see how it goes.
>
> > Also, my intention is to ensure that the upstream cvs tree can always be
> > built with this 4.3.0 SDK, at least upto the time of the 4.4.0 release.
> >
> > So, no, it would not be useless, i would even have such a package
> > already if there was SDK already, and i was only waiting for the 4.3.0-1
> > release, which i had the impression from our last exchange, was going to
> > happen any time now.
>
> If it didn't work, it'd be useless. That's what I'm saying, and I don't
> intend to have anything useless kicking around in my XFree86 packages.
Ok, i managed to build the 4.3.0 SDK, move it to a different directory,
replace the drivers by the drivers from the xfree86 CVS trunk drivers
module, build it in place and then install it.
There are still some raw places and i need to install it in a different
directory so i can build a package from it, but basically you can say
that it is working, and i am ready to do a package of it as soon as
there is an official 4.3.0 package (or an unofficial one supporting the
SDK).
The only problem is that i failed to build the ati driver, but this is
something that needs to be tackled in the development version, and which
i will do nextly. And anyway, this is due because the trunk ati driver
is incompatible with 4.3.0, so there is no way i could build it with the
4.3.0 SDK right now.
So, after this experimentation, i feel that a tarball as discussed
earlier is ok, and in truth i don't even need the drivers subdirectory.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: