libX11-XCB [Was: X drivers depend on Gnome?]
alex-goncharov at comcast.net
Sat Feb 7 15:01:01 PST 2009
,--- I/Alex (Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:22:27 -0500) ----*
| ,--- I/Alex (Wed, 04 Feb 2009 08:55:28 -0500) ----*
| | ,--- You/Florent (Wed, 4 Feb 2009 13:21:15 +0000) ----*
| | | Please send patches. Kthxbye.
| | Does this mean that you agree with me in principle and if I send you
| | patches, there is a high probability they will he accepted (provided
| | they work, of course)?
| ,--- You/Florent (Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:00:25 +0000) ----*
| | In principle yes.
| Good, thank you.
| | Now you do have to understand that this is a lot of boring work and
| | you'll need approval from portmgr@, not just me.
| I understand both and it remains to be seen if I handle the task (not
| in the next three weeks, at least, I think). But I don't want to go
| for a lot of boring work without knowing that the change would be
| welcome in principle, at least by some of the involved people.
I spent some time playing with this.
Yes, that's a lot of work -- and a potential build destabilization.
This said, I created a bsd.xorg.mk without GNOME dependencies, and
modified a few lower level X components make files accordingly.
The work is not done yet but I am able to build some protocols and
libraries now and am usefully improving my understanding of both the
ports build system and the modern X structure.
I don't think I am going to submit my patches, even when I am done,
because I see the far-reaching scope of the changes and an extra
destabilization of current X in ports would not be a good idea.
But I am thinking of building an X build structure for my own
consumption. Essentially, I want a minimalist X build/install -- I
run not that many X applications.
E.g. I haven't seen any benefit of using HAL yet -- so I am happily
running HAL-less and intend to continue to do so.
Now another new (about two-years-old, I think) addition to X caught my
attention -- XCB. I've done some reading and didn't see any argument
for using it by a non-X-developer (while the architectural argument
sounds good, no doubt.)
This is good recent post expressing one view on XCB usefulness --
Re: Why disabling XCB in x11/lix11 ?
So far nothing really needed it which made attacking the issues a
less interesting way to proceed.
And I also see plenty of XCB-enable/disable clauses in ports.
[ Three (grumbling) side observations here:
1. Why does bsd.mesalib.mk live in graphics/libGL, rather than in
the standard Mk?
2. Why are there two different switches for the same purpose:
WITH_XCB and WITHOUT_XCB?
3. Why neither of the switches is documented (as far as the search
in Mk shows)? ]
So, I built my libX11 without XCB and will try to build other
components without it.
My question to X experts is: will I lose anything without using XCB?
(Again, not caring about X application development.)
-- Alex -- alex-goncharov at comcast.net --
More information about the freebsd-ports