Re: So, what's up with the XFree86 4.0 .debs?

2000-03-16 Thread Torsten Landschoff
Hi Branden, On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 10:32:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Hmm. I am using the following patch, which I got from slashdot of all > places: > > --- xc/config/makedepend/cppsetup.c.origSun Mar 12 15:47:41 2000 > +++ xc/config/makedepend/cppsetup.c Sun Mar 12 15:

Re: So, what's up with the XFree86 4.0 .debs?

2000-03-14 Thread Jason Gunthorpe
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Steve Greenland wrote: > Why not? Have you read the compiler/linker docs? Adding -I/some/dir/inc > and -L/some/dir/lib causes those directories to be searched *before* the > default directories. I don't have an opinion about where the X stuff > should go, but the above argume

Re: So, what's up with the XFree86 4.0 .debs?

2000-03-14 Thread Steve Greenland
On 13-Mar-00, 16:55 (CST), Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I often find myself in the position when I use X libraries (Xt > mostly) built by myself with some changes to allow debugging of my > Xt widgets. I install new libs and headers in another directory and > -I/this/new/dir and -L/

Re: So, what's up with the XFree86 4.0 .debs?

2000-03-13 Thread Alex Yukhimets
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 08:20:48AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 09:59:20AM -0500, Alex Yukhimets wrote: > > _please_ don't do it. It will be utterely confusing to find everything in a > > new place. As a person who does X development writing -I/usr/X11R6/include > > is an

Re: So, what's up with the XFree86 4.0 .debs?

2000-03-13 Thread Hamish Moffatt
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 09:59:20AM -0500, Alex Yukhimets wrote: > _please_ don't do it. It will be utterely confusing to find everything in a > new place. As a person who does X development writing -I/usr/X11R6/include > is an idiom. So as for many people. /usr itself is cluttered more then enough.

Re: So, what's up with the XFree86 4.0 .debs?

2000-03-13 Thread Branden Robinson
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 09:59:20AM -0500, Alex Yukhimets wrote: > Commercical packages I use assume > existence of /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults (not to mention > /usr/X11R6/include and /usr/X11R6/lib). Sorry, dude, upstream already kicked over the table on that one. It is now /etc/X11/app-defa

Re: So, what's up with the XFree86 4.0 .debs?

2000-03-13 Thread Edward Betts
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 02:22:10AM +, Edward Betts wrote: > > I thought the plan was to drop support for ISA VGA cards in 4.x, so people > > who want to keep using old hardware HAVE to stick with 3.3.x > > If so, that's news to me and I've been fol

Re: So, what's up with the XFree86 4.0 .debs?

2000-03-13 Thread Alex Yukhimets
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 10:47:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > You are going to keep /usr/X11R6 for this release right? I guess that the > > XFree86 people might get a bit irritated if you tried to drop it. > > Actually, I've evilly been toying with the idea of #defining ProjectRoot to > /u

Re: So, what's up with the XFree86 4.0 .debs?

2000-03-13 Thread Marcus Brinkmann
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 10:47:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > You are going to keep /usr/X11R6 for this release right? I guess that the > > XFree86 people might get a bit irritated if you tried to drop it. > > Actually, I've evilly been toying with the idea of #defining ProjectRoot to > /u

Re: So, what's up with the XFree86 4.0 .debs?

2000-03-13 Thread Sven LUTHER
Hello, Nice to hear about the future 4.0 plan. i agree with most of what you propose. I have a question conerning the 3D stuff. Glx will be included in XF 4.0, but this is a point that will most assuredly confuse lots of people. In fact, (if i understood this issue correctly, which i am still

Re: So, what's up with the XFree86 4.0 .debs?

2000-03-13 Thread Branden Robinson
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 02:22:10AM +, Edward Betts wrote: > I thought the plan was to drop support for ISA VGA cards in 4.x, so people > who want to keep using old hardware HAVE to stick with 3.3.x If so, that's news to me and I've been following the XFree86 developers' list for months. Suppo

Re: So, what's up with the XFree86 4.0 .debs?

2000-03-13 Thread Branden Robinson
lookup_variable (ip, var, strlen(var)); } while (s); It did seem to fix the problem. If someone who understands cppsetup.c could comment and it turns out that this patch doesn't in fact disable some feature of cppsetup, I will submit this patch to XFree86. Anyway, XFree86 4.0 built with

Re: So, what's up with the XFree86 4.0 .debs?

2000-03-13 Thread Alex Romosan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 01:16:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > [snip] > > [1] The makedepend program gets stuck in an infinite loop when attempting > > to generate dependencies in xc/programs/xterm. One of Tom Dickey's > > patches, #130 or #131, is probably the c

Re: So, what's up with the XFree86 4.0 .debs?

2000-03-13 Thread Edward Betts
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also, in case it was unclear in my previous mail, I have no plans to > support full versions of XFree86 3.3.x and 4.x in the same Debian release. > By the time official 4.0 .debs are ready, it is my hope that the legacy > chipsets currently only support

Re: So, what's up with the XFree86 4.0 .debs?

2000-03-13 Thread markm
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 01:16:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: [snip] > [1] The makedepend program gets stuck in an infinite loop when attempting > to generate dependencies in xc/programs/xterm. One of Tom Dickey's > patches, #130 or #131, is probably the culprit since I think these are the >

Re: So, what's up with the XFree86 4.0 .debs?

2000-03-12 Thread Branden Robinson
Today's news flash: omitted words can really change the meaning of a sentence. On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 01:16:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > They're not available yet, so I am sending this message to apprise Debian > users my fellow developers of the situation. ...users AND my fellow develo

So, what's up with the XFree86 4.0 .debs?

2000-03-12 Thread Branden Robinson
I have been getting a fair amount of mail about this so I thought I would mail two of the most widely-read lists Debian has. Hopefully folks will agree with me that XFree86 4.0 support has ramifications for both users and developers. I don't subscribe to -user, so I will not see replies p

Re: XFree86 4.0

2000-03-11 Thread Ricardo Javier Cardenes Medina
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 02:15:23AM +, Pedro Guerreiro wrote: > > Even if the 4.0 release was ok, I'm not very confortable with releasing such > a beast in the midle of the frozen. Almost certainly the wreck it would > cause should postpone the release about half a year (give or take a few > mo

Re: XFree86 4.0

2000-03-11 Thread Pedro Guerreiro
inly the wreck it would cause should postpone the release about half a year (give or take a few months :) pmg > > Federico Di Gregorio wrote: > > > > xfree86 4.0 released! we'll see it in woody? ciao, federico > > > > -- > > Federico Di Gregorio > >

XFree86 4.0

2000-03-10 Thread Kenneth Scharf
I just read on LinuxToday that XFree86 4.0 has been released. It is still considered 'unstable' so I guess it will in 'Woody'. = Amateur Radio, when all else fails! http://www.qsl.net/wa2mze Debian Gnu Linux, Live Free or . _

Re: XFree86 4.0

2000-03-10 Thread SCOTT FENTON
I was wondering if we could pkg it alongside XF3.3.6 in potato (but then again, I wondered why we couldn't do this with the 2.2 kernel in slink). Federico Di Gregorio wrote: > > xfree86 4.0 released! we'll see it in woody? ciao, federico > > -- > Federico Di Gre

XFree86 4.0

2000-03-10 Thread Federico Di Gregorio
xfree86 4.0 released! we'll see it in woody? ciao, federico -- Federico Di Gregorio MIXAD LIVE System Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED] All programmers are optimists. -- Fr