1 |
On 26-10-2010 19:03:23 +0400, Konstantin Tokarev wrote: |
2 |
> I think on some platforms having another set of X11 libraries and headers |
3 |
> inside prefix is redundant. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> X11 is very conservative technology. Recent changes are in the field of direct |
6 |
> hardware interaction, but I believe it is not possible to use DRI inside prefix |
7 |
> if X11 implementation in prefix is not compatible with host one, so it could not |
8 |
> be reason for need of keeping updated X.org version inside prefix. |
9 |
|
10 |
One of the ideas behind Prefix is that you use as little as possible |
11 |
from the host system, or that you hide a slightly different installed |
12 |
(but compatible) package, by a host-system wrapper. |
13 |
|
14 |
> On Linux host we already have X.org, maybe different version than in portage |
15 |
> But API and ABI is keeped stable between releases. Mac OS X >= 10.5 also |
16 |
> provides X.org. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Some platforms provide alternative implementations of X11, and I guess they must |
19 |
> be API compatible with X.org. These include Windows SFU, older Mac OS X (<= 10.4) |
20 |
> and older Linux using Xfree86, maybe other Unixes too. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> I propose to add virtual ebuilds for using host X11 libraries instead of building own. |
23 |
> Any objections? |
24 |
|
25 |
No objections (I'd imagine eselect X11), other than that it would be a |
26 |
Prefix local change. I'm not sure it's worth the hassle to go through |
27 |
to do it, but if it's done, it should be initiated at gentoo-x86 level, |
28 |
not Prefix. |
29 |
|
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
Fabian Groffen |
33 |
Gentoo on a different level |