On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:11:10PM -0700, Brian Paul wrote:
> I'm willing to bet that there's around 100 header files in the XFree86
> tree that get pulled into the compilation of the various DRI-related
> source files.
>
> Determining what to keep and what to discard would be a long process
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:11:10PM -0700, Brian Paul wrote:
> Philip Brown wrote:
> > That definately sounds like the Right Thing To Do.
>
> Easier said than done.
>
> I'm willing to bet that there's around 100 header files in the XFree86
> tree that get pulled into the compilation of the various
Philip Brown wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 09:46:35PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
...
If the goal is to make the DRI CVS as small as possible, why not go all
the way and turn it into an environment for building only the DRI-related
modules? That would change the nature of XFree86 merges quite a
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 09:46:35PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
> ...
> If the goal is to make the DRI CVS as small as possible, why not go all
> the way and turn it into an environment for building only the DRI-related
> modules? That would change the nature of XFree86 merges quite a bit,
> but that
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 04:32:03PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
>Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> On Don, 2002-11-07 at 16:56, Keith Whitwell wrote:
>>
>>>Michel Dänzer wrote:
>>>
These no longer get built by default. Any objections against the
attached patch?
>>>Actually if they're not built,
On Thu, 2002-11-07 at 09:04, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 05:48:22PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > Anyway, back to the point of my patch: even in the context of the
> > XFree86 tree, does it make sense only to build these libraries when all
> > libraries are built, even if the
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 05:26:40PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Don, 2002-11-07 at 16:56, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> > Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > These no longer get built by default. Any objections against the
> > > attached patch?
> >
> > Actually if they're not built, I think we should ditch t
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 09:16:49AM -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 05:04:41PM +, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 05:48:22PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > On Don, 2002-11-07 at 17:38, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 04:32:03PM +000
On Don, 2002-11-07 at 18:04, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 05:48:22PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Don, 2002-11-07 at 17:38, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 04:32:03PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> > > > Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > > >On Don, 2002-11-07 a
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 05:04:41PM +, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 05:48:22PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Don, 2002-11-07 at 17:38, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 04:32:03PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> > > > Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > > >On Don,
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 05:48:22PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Don, 2002-11-07 at 17:38, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 04:32:03PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> > > Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > >On Don, 2002-11-07 at 16:56, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>Michel Dänzer
On Don, 2002-11-07 at 17:38, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 04:32:03PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> > Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > >On Don, 2002-11-07 at 16:56, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> > >
> > >>Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>These no longer get built by default. Any objections a
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 04:32:03PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> Michel Dänzer wrote:
> >On Don, 2002-11-07 at 16:56, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> >
> >>Michel Dänzer wrote:
> >>
> >>>These no longer get built by default. Any objections against the
> >>>attached patch?
> >>>
> >>Actually if they're not
Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Don, 2002-11-07 at 16:56, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Michel Dänzer wrote:
These no longer get built by default. Any objections against the
attached patch?
Actually if they're not built, I think we should ditch them from cvs. We're
not working on them.
In that case I'd
On Don, 2002-11-07 at 16:56, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > These no longer get built by default. Any objections against the
> > attached patch?
>
> Actually if they're not built, I think we should ditch them from cvs. We're
> not working on them.
In that case I'd vote again f
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 03:56:46PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> Michel Dänzer wrote:
> >These no longer get built by default. Any objections against the
> >attached patch?
>
> Actually if they're not built, I think we should ditch them from cvs.
> We're not working on them.
Now that sound lik
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 08:37:57AM -0700, Brian Paul wrote:
> Alan Hourihane wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 08:17:06AM -0700, Brian Paul wrote:
> >
> >>Alan Hourihane wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 03:13:30PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> These no longer get built by de
Michel Dänzer wrote:
These no longer get built by default. Any objections against the
attached patch?
Actually if they're not built, I think we should ditch them from cvs. We're
not working on them.
Keith
---
This sf.net email is sponso
Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 08:17:06AM -0700, Brian Paul wrote:
Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 03:13:30PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
These no longer get built by default. Any objections against the
attached patch?
Is there any reason to ? Have we patched
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 08:17:06AM -0700, Brian Paul wrote:
> Alan Hourihane wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 03:13:30PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> >
> >>These no longer get built by default. Any objections against the
> >>attached patch?
> >
> >
> >Is there any reason to ? Have we patched/chan
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 04:09:44PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Don, 2002-11-07 at 16:01, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 03:13:30PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > These no longer get built by default. Any objections against the
> > > attached patch?
> >
> > Is there any r
Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 03:13:30PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
These no longer get built by default. Any objections against the
attached patch?
Is there any reason to ? Have we patched/changed these at all from
the standard 4.2.0 base ?
When I bring Mesa 5.0 into CVS I
On Don, 2002-11-07 at 16:01, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 03:13:30PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > These no longer get built by default. Any objections against the
> > attached patch?
>
> Is there any reason to ? Have we patched/changed these at all from
> the standard 4.2.0 b
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 03:13:30PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> These no longer get built by default. Any objections against the
> attached patch?
Is there any reason to ? Have we patched/changed these at all from
the standard 4.2.0 base ?
Alan.
These no longer get built by default. Any objections against the
attached patch?
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast
Index: config/cf/host.def
==
25 matches
Mail list logo
