Colin Harrison wrote:
Hi,
Another decision is what executables and dlls are built in distributions?
Do we provide:-
1) Support for GL and Mesa only by two builds (current situation), where GL
version is faster but less universally applicable?
There should be one build with both renderers, handled just like
Indirect/Mesa versus DRI in other X servers.
2) Support for builds of both Xwin and Xming from the same source tree?
That will need separate versions of every object file, right? That is
hard to do with the current design, but I have set up some Makefiles to
prefix binary output files for multiple builds. I think this set up
should really be more common, so one can build a Debug or Release
versions without starting from scratch.
3) Additional specialist builds...I do my own xc/config/cf file changes, for
instance, to optimise for Pentium processors and performance/codesize (~40%
improvements easily made)?
I think these types of tweaks are supposed to be confined to site.def if
the main .cf is done right, but it seems that nobody distributes
multiple example site.defs. This probably fits into the multiple-build
Makefile idea.
In the long run xorg is becoming modular (moving away from the original
monolithic structure, we build against), should this be taken on board
sooner or later?
I would say later. As long as things get tweaked, Cygwin is likely to
get a lot of incompatible changes. Best to wait until it is very stable.
But, meanwhile, code additions and clean-ups should keep modularization
in mind.
Joe
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/
FAQ: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/
