Dan Nicholson writes:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 3:18 PM, tom fogal wrote:
> > Alan Coopersmith writes:
> >> On 12/22/10 02:30 PM, tom fogal wrote:
> >>
> >> We generally don't copy macros from the autoconf-archive into
> >> xorg-macros, [. . .] Is there any reason not to do that here? Why
> >>
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 3:18 PM, tom fogal wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith writes:
>> On 12/22/10 02:30 PM, tom fogal wrote:
>>
>> We generally don't copy macros from the autoconf-archive into
>> xorg-macros, we just use them as is - adding *.m4 files to
>> packages that need them (especially when it's
Alan Coopersmith writes:
> On 12/22/10 02:30 PM, tom fogal wrote:
>
> We generally don't copy macros from the autoconf-archive into
> xorg-macros, we just use them as is - adding *.m4 files to
> packages that need them (especially when it's just one or two
> packages, not most of X.Org's 200+ pac
On 12/22/10 02:30 PM, tom fogal wrote:
> I'm not really sure about any policy of adding a macro and requiring
> it in another package; I had to bump the version number so that the X
> server could be sure the macro exists. Not sure if that's the correct
> thing to do. Please educate me.
That is
Attached are two patches, one for util/macros and the second for
xorg/xserver, which are aimed at getting --enable/--disable-glx-tls to
be identified automatically, instead of defaulting to disabled. Lack
of TLS leads to non-PIC code, which is particularly annoying in an
SELinux environment.
See:
