On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:48:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:37:52PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:52:13AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > Is there somewhere the 4.3.0-pre1v1 source package are available while > > > they are waiting in the new queue ? I wish to build them, and try to > > > work on providing the driver SDK this weekend. > > > > http://auric.debian.org/~branden/ > > A, ok. I had trouble building the package with your -ds4 packages, since > libxcursor is needed to build, but it overwrites a file from the -ds4 xlibs-dev, > and installing the 4.2.1 stuff would have meant removing all the -0ds4 > packages, which i didn't want to do. I just forced the overwrite and it > went fine.
Hmm, ds4 shouldn't require xc ... oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, that does kinda suck. Just force the xcursor stuff and it should all be good. > > Umm, no. We want to build with cpp-3.2, because cpp-3.3 doesn't process text, > > Ok, i noticed that when looking at the 003a patch. > > > and it should be appled by patch #001b or such. Are you *sure* all the patches > > are getting applied? > > Yep, the problem is that branden added the define CppCmd > cpp-3.2 in the 003a patch, which gets applied just before the 003 one, > and apparently didn't rebuild the 003 patch. I will attach here the > fixed version. Oh, I see. Well, if that's in #003, that's changed recently, and someone needs to be thwapped; my 20030804 snapshot doesn't have that as an original line in #003. > > > I will try to fix this, and provide a corrected patch, and see if it > > > fails further down. > > > > The patch is correct. > > No, it is not, it doesn't apply, it doesn't know about the CppCmd line, > which got added by 003a. Sorry, I misunderstood you here; you're right, if #003 does really have cpp-3.2 as an original line. > That said, maybe the problem is because i used the nightly snapshot, and > it has already fixed in SVN, or something such. > > Anyway, it is building now. 20030804 wfm. > > > BTW, what is the prefered way of handling this kind of stuff ? Using > > > debian-x, mail to Branden directly, or perhaps to the X task force ? > > > > debian-x is the best way to reach the XSF, yes. > > Ok. > > BTW, you have already added my SDK patch, right ? I will try to build it > now, and create a separate package with it inside as a tarball, unless > you want to do it yourself as you told me some month back. I've moved house on very short notice, and don't have a functional net connection, really; I don't have the time to work on it with exams and assessments, either. I'm planning to do it in a couple of weeks, but in the meantime it's up to Branden or someone else to merge it. I suggest sending a full patch to the list and trying to get someone to merge it. > Then i will be building drivers snapshot packages out of the X CVS, but > using a totally separate source tarball, as it should be. Cool, nice one. > BTW, is it to early to upload my gnome-randr-applet package, which > depends on 4.3.0 ? I have it ready for month, but couldn't upload it > previously. If i upload it to experimental, it should enter experimental > together with xfree86, but then, maybe i should wait to have an official > 4.3.0 package in unstable ? I don't see why you shouldn't upload it to experimental now. -- Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.kde.org - http://www.debian.org - http://www.xwin.org "Configurability is always the best choice when it's pretty simple to implement" -- Havoc Pennington, gnome-list
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
