Re: [Tigervnc-devel] [Tigervnc-commits] SF.net SVN: tigervnc:[4645] trunk/common

2011-08-24 Thread Martin Koegler
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 02:36:57PM +0200, Pierre Ossman wrote: On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 07:08:21 -0500 DRC dcomman...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: Yuck! I am really averse to setting flags specific to building vnc.so when most people won't be building it. I'm not sure if I understand how

Re: [Tigervnc-devel] [Tigervnc-commits] SF.net SVN: tigervnc:[4645] trunk/common

2011-08-23 Thread DRC
On 8/22/11 7:36 AM, Pierre Ossman wrote: AFAICT libtool used -fPIC by default for the convenience stuff (i.e. noinst_*). I initially intended to add a knob for it, but I changed my mind as PIC is basically harmless on x86_64 (AFAIK). In other words, since the stuff I committed should do the

Re: [Tigervnc-devel] [Tigervnc-commits] SF.net SVN: tigervnc:[4645] trunk/common

2011-08-22 Thread DRC
Yuck! I am really averse to setting flags specific to building vnc.so when most people won't be building it. I'm not sure if I understand how the new system differs from the old in this respect. Didn't you have to specify --with-pic to get PIC code under autotools? Can't we do the same thing

Re: [Tigervnc-devel] [Tigervnc-commits] SF.net SVN: tigervnc:[4645] trunk/common

2011-08-22 Thread Pierre Ossman
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 07:08:21 -0500 DRC dcomman...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: Yuck! I am really averse to setting flags specific to building vnc.so when most people won't be building it. I'm not sure if I understand how the new system differs from the old in this respect. Didn't you have