[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Cope without xmkmf
From: |
Stepan Kasal |
Subject: |
Re: Cope without xmkmf |
Date: |
Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:39:08 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
Hello Andreas,
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 01:23:26PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Stepan Kasal <address@hidden> writes:
> > Are we able to make AC_PATH_XTRA ready for xmkmf-less Xorg before
> > the
> > end of summer?
>
> AC_PATH_XTRA itself does not use xmkmf,
Sure, I meant AC_PATH_X. Sorry for the confusion.
> and AC_PATH_X already has a fallback when xmkmf does not work.
I was afraid that the fallback (_AC_PATH_X_DIRECT) is not multilib
aware and might break on 64bit Fedora.
Now I have read the code carefully, and I see I was wrong.
Thanks for correcting me.
On Fedora, both ac_x_includes and ac_x_libraries always end up being
empty, no matter whether xmkmf is available or not.
> Installations that use /usr as
> prefix for X should already work out of the box.
That is not exactly the reason. The reason is that "$CC -lX11"
works, without any -L options. Should that command fail,
_AC_PATH_X_DIRECT would have no chance to find the library directory
because it never tries any path with a lib64 component.
So my version of the statement is:
If -lX11 works without any -I or -L options, then it works out of the
box. Instalations not using multilib ("lib64 path) also have a high
probability to be handled correctly by _AC_PATH_X_DIRECT.
If any of the recipients of this mail knows about an Xorg user which
does not fit into the above and shall be supported by Autoconf,
please speak up.
Have a nice day,
Stepan Kasal