On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 17:11 -0400, Writer, Tim wrote: > Hmmm. I see a desire to build upstream Xorg from source and being an > unsuspecting builder/newcomer as mutually exclusive. While this > particular error message is a little opaque, the solution is straight > forward and only an apt-get/yum/YaST, etc. away. I think most > developers > will have no trouble understanding that building 32-bit anything on a > 64-bit platform requires at least a basic 32-bit development > environment. Once we have 32-bit builds working correctly on 64-bit > systems, it would be useful to add the above error to a FAQ (is there > a > FAQ for xorg-driver-geode?) but what else can we do. Most (all?) Linux > distributions are packaged this way, with separate 64-bit and 32-bit > development environments. Even if we would prefer it another way, what > can we reasonably do about it? >
I agree. Building on as many platforms as possible should not be a goal for geode. Because only a dozen or so out of the 240 xorg packages do not build on large number of platforms, some people don't know if it is a real build error and report problems. The patches I originally suggested were meant to address this low priority "feature". This seem to have resurrected past proposals which are outside my competencies. Bottom line, there is a requirement to build 32 bit driver on 64 bit host and this takes precedence. I am ok with aborting the config with some message to avoid bug report. There is still the second I mention to verify.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Xorg-driver-geode mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-driver-geode
