Hi,
On 11/28/2013 09:54 AM, Łukasz Stelmach wrote:
It was <2013-11-27 śro 11:37>, when Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi Łukasz,
So I was taking a closer look at the libxtrans patch today,
and I noticed that it does not build. It adds a check for
trans->flags&TRANS_RECEIVED inside the main loop in
MakeAllCOTSServerListeners. But TRANS_RECEIVED does not get
defined anywhere.
It definitely is
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.freedesktop.xorg.devel/37694
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.freedesktop.xorg.devel/36092/focus=37694
I've added a define for it to Xtransint.h, which fixes the
build issue. But other then fixing the BuildIssue this
makes little sense, since the flag is never being set.
It is, in the patch above.
So an alternative approach to fixing the build issue, would
to just remove the addition of the check from your patch.
Which has left me wondering why did you add this check in
the first place? What was it supposed to do, and if we
drop the check, do we need some other code to achieve
the same result?
While looking into this, I've polished the patch a but
up, addressing some of the review comments from its
earlier posting, and improving error reporting. I've
attached my cleaned-up version.
Could you please make sure you are working with the v4 version of the
patches as available here:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.freedesktop.xorg.devel/36092/focus=37693
Ah, Peter had given me a link to the older v3.2 patches. Using v4 helps.
I've applied v4 to my local tree, then added some cleanups addressing the
review comments plus better error-reporting I already did to v3 to:
the "Enable systemd socket activation" libxtrans patch. And with that
I've run some simple tests successfully.
I'm going to re-post my version of the patches (only the "Enable systemd
socket activation" is changed) to the list, and if there are no objections
I'll push it to the official xorg repos.
Note I'm not including: "Do not define ErrorF in xstrans.c, libxtrans handles
it."
as that no longer applies (trivial to fix, but I wonder if it is still valid),
and it seems to be an unrelated cleanup patch.
Thanks & Regards,
Hans
_______________________________________________
[email protected]: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
