Well I'm not a BLFS developer but as I see it, modular Xorg has some disadvantages and some advantages: + Just compile what you need, no more apps installed that you don't use + You can run a newer Xserver, using older X libaries (whether this is smart I leave up to you) - Those autotooled scripts are taking a lot of time. Every little program needs a configure command. This means configure checks the same things 200 times.
I would be happier with a non-modular tree since it is way easier to build. Now I have a script of some hundred lines and I have to make sure I compile everything in the right order. It's no fun... 2008/1/23, Jeremy Henty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > [I'm not sure if blfs-support is the best list for this - I'll happily > take it to another list if people think it's appropriate.] > > There's a big discussion on the x.org list about the state of the Xorg > tree. Apparently the complete tree hasn't built in over a year. Some > people are arguing for merging the drivers back into the server tree. > One contributor flamed that the whole idea of building Xorg from > source is now a joke. (Others disagreed and posted various build > scripts.) Also, in an earlier discussion more than one person claimed > that the 7.3 release was inferior to previous 7.x releases in > important ways. > > So just out of interest I'm wondering what do BLFS developers think of > the state of Xorg, particularly of building from source? Is it > getting flaky? Should the Xorg devs be sorting their act out or are > things OK as they are? > > Regards, > > Jeremy Henty > -- > http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support > FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html > Unsubscribe: See the above information page > -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
