On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 08:50 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: > On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 06:12:57PM -0400, Gaetan Nadon wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 00:00 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 17:57:45 -0400, Gaetan Nadon wrote: > > > > > > > Now I get it. However randr is an optional extension, it may or may not > > > > be defined in the server. On the other hand, the server should perhaps > > > > > > xorg-server.pc is generated, it can require randrproto or not depending > > > on whether xorg-server.h will define RANDR. > > > > > > > > > This sounds like the proper solution, which has to be implemented in the > > server. Currently, all input and video drivers have a dependency on > > RANDR coded in their configuration. Would you agree that, at the moment, > > this is unfortunately correct? > > or clean up xf86.h so that the RandR specific function declarations are > defined elsewhere? Would this be an option? the only reason it is included > is the Rotation typedef. >
That was my initial thought, but I find the .pc solution attractive. Even if there were no problems to solve, the server should declare its dependencies there. It would also solves other indirect dependencies like randr which depends on render. Failing to include headers file is still not a perfect test for detecting dependencies. The xf86.h header should also be refactored as well, of course. > Cheers, > Peter
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
