Re: Native X.Org: testers wanted

[Eric Haszlakiewicz <erh%nimenees.com@localhost>]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 04:44:08PM +0200, Quentin Garnier wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 09:50:37AM -0400, Izaac wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 03:50:06AM +0300, Cem Kayali wrote:
> > > I use modular Xorg from pkgsrc, and i would like to know advantages  
> > > and/or important differences between mentioned native Xorg and modular  
> > 
> > None.  Rather than take advantage of the possibility of finally
> > divorcing the optional graphics subsystem into the framework for
> > optional subsystems, i.e. pkgsrc, we're now apparently maintaining
> > the same software in two places.
> 
> Please point me to your patches that enable us to use pkgsrc from
> build.sh and cross-compile X.org from about any POSIX system.  I
> really won't mind flushing down the toilets rtr and mrg's work
> because I feel the same as you do.  And I'm pretty sure they wouldn't
> mind that the pkgsrc people would be the only ones maintaining X.Org.
> 
> Oh, wait, maybe you were just being snotty.

I thought there already were several packages in pkgsrc to help with 
 doing cross compilation.  Do those do anything beyond just building
 an appropriate compiler?  
Once you have the tools built, isn't it just a matter of setting 
CC=$TOOLDIR/<foo>-gcc, and telling pkgsrc to install into a separate destdir?

Since no-one has done it yet, there's probably more to do, but I don't have 
much of an idea of what beyond pointing at the right C compiler would be 
necessary, so when I hear someone say "I did a bunch of work to import X again"
it really sounds like amount of work it take to do that outweighs what it 
would take to get it working in pkgsrc.

eric