On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 05:56:08PM +0200, Denis Oliver Kropp wrote: > Sven Luther schrieb: > >On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 05:17:05PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote: > >>On Sat, Sep 30, 2006, Sven Luther wrote: > >>>Also, if we want to get this solved, we need have an easy way for users > >>>to > >>>debug this issue, and "the other ways" you mentioned are not going to be > >>>very > >>>helpful in this. > >> Would it be possible to simply take the libdirectfb-bin .deb and unpack > >> it? > > > >It should be possible, and then wget the binaries. > > > >I still do believe that it would be lightyears more userfriendly to have > >those > >binaries in a .udeb, which can be included in the ramdisk while we are > >investigating this issue, and later is available for install if one wants, > >but > >Frans has fear of bloating the archive or maybe just because it was me > >proposing it. How big are those two binaries anyway ? a few tens of KBs ? > > dfbinfo is 8.8K > > dfbinfo: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for > GNU/Linux 2.6.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux > 2.6.0, stripped
so probably 10K or so on powerpc > df_dok is 69K, but it also requires some images and loaders for PNG, > JPEG, GIF, TTF. Well, the images and loaders are most probably already present on the ramdisk anyway. Those we care about at least ? > So for simple graphics tests, as dfbinfo has no graphics, df_dok would > be a huge "next step". You could use df_particle, which doesn't load any > font or image, doesn't require additional DirectFB modules and is just > 5.7K here in binary size. Unfortunately, it uses a lot of floating point > and sin/cos IIRC. So, at most we are speaking about a 100KB of binaries, and maybe 20KB if we only go for df_particle ? Compared to a 10+ GB ramdisk, this is peanuts. Are df_particle and df_dok in the same tarball as the main directfb stuff ? the debian libdirectfb-bin .deb package has only the dfb* binaries. > >But anyway, our mighty leader has spoken, there is nothing a poor outcast > >like > >me can do about this, and this kind of stuff is clearly not very motivating > >for me to help solve issues, i hope others will jump in. > > I think at least dfbinfo is mandatory in a system with a shell. It's the > standard diagnostic tool of DirectFB, like xdpyinfo for X11. Yeah, but this is out of my power, and i will probably already be blamed for what i have said so far :/ Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
