This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-xfree
mailing list for the Cygwin XFree86 project.
Re: Compiling XWin (modular Xorg)
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-xfree at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 14:40:50 -0500
- Subject: Re: Compiling XWin (modular Xorg)
- References: <1197404086.30103.18.camel@zxvpslinux> <475F685A.6030504@users.sourceforge.net> <cd3b087a0801061055j301a6982s69a6fbe8ee94d46d@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: cygwin-xfree at cygwin dot com
- Reply-to: cygwin-xfree at cygwin dot com
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 01:55:17PM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
>On Dec 11, 2007 11:49 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
>> Janjaap Bos wrote:
>> > The changes I made are all in the patch. Let me know when you have
>> > suggestions, and whether you're able to build it. Perhaps Yaakov is
>> > willing to check it with his findings.
>>
>> Thank you VERY much. I will try to look into this into the near future,
>> as the server is the only holdup in getting X11R7 finished on Cygwin.
>>
>Hi all,
>
>Have you guys checked out the Xming patches
>(http://www.straightrunning.com/XmingCode/)? Most of them modify code
>that is the same as we use and contain many fixes to current problems
>we are experiencing, such as the 24bpp issue. Also, a lot of AG's
>fixes he did not commit to either trunk or the cygwin branch. He's
>also come up with a rather unsavory, yet workable hack to the
>overloaded function issue. There are a ton of DD improvements to the
>GLX acceleration code, too. Admittedly, the person who runs that
>project is still using monolithic as the base and has a rather bizarre
>way of updating the sources uses modular code, but still, it ought to
>be worthwhile to check out. Unfortunately, he keeps his latest changes
>behind a "donation" paywall, but I'm sure if asked by a well know
>cygwin-xorg developer, he would be willing to part with them.
>
>As for the overloaded function problem, I do recall we had this same
>issue back in 2002-2003 with shared libXt. You might want to search
>through the archives on that one for the whole story. It was a real
>frustrating problem to deal with, but a good solution was found that
>worked well.
>
>I had a thought on packaging. Perhaps we should adopt the Fedora
>scheme? I mean they seem to have packaged it nicely without having 60+
>packages. We would still want our versioned packages for the runtime,
>but it should help to cut down on the number of packages without
>having binary compatibility problems. You could then use the current
>cygwin x11-xorg package names as "collection" stubs for the individual
>ones. Just a thought.
Who are you talking to here exactly? We don't have a Cygwin/X
maintainer so any suggestions or great ideas are guaranteed not to
be implmenented.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/
FAQ: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/