From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 3 16:06:20 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 436AC16A420 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2006 16:06:20 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from youshi10@u.washington.edu) Received: from mxout5.cac.washington.edu (mxout5.cac.washington.edu [140.142.32.135]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2CF843D46 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2006 16:06:19 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from youshi10@u.washington.edu) Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu [140.142.33.9]) by mxout5.cac.washington.edu (8.13.5+UW05.10/8.13.5+UW05.09) with ESMTP id k13G6JKU004106 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2006 08:06:19 -0800 X-Auth-Received: from [192.168.0.23] (dsl254-013-145.sea1.dsl.speakeasy.net [216.254.13.145]) (authenticated authid=youshi10) by smtp.washington.edu (8.13.5+UW05.10/8.13.5+UW05.09) with ESMTP id k13G6IX8006345 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2006 08:06:18 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) In-Reply-To: <43E340E7.1080507@cs.tu-berlin.de> References: <43E2E2F1.70206@u.washington.edu> <43E2F43B.1000303@u.washington.edu> <43E30BDD.9090005@cs.tu-berlin.de> <200602030257.27685.kstewart@owt.com> <43E340E7.1080507@cs.tu-berlin.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Garrett Cooper Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 08:07:35 -0800 To: FreeBSD Questions X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='__CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_X_MAILER 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0' Subject: Re: Any idea when Xorg 7.0's coming to FBSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 16:06:20 -0000 On Feb 3, 2006, at 3:39 AM, Bj=F6rn K=F6nig wrote: > Kent Stewart schrieb: >> On Thursday 02 February 2006 23:53, Bj=F6rn K=F6nig wrote: >>> The noticeable difference is that 7.0 takes much more time to =20 >>> compile >>> all in all because of its modularity. A German magazine tested both: >>> 6.9 took 19 minutes and 7.0 75 minutes on their dual Opteron 246 >>> machine with 2 GB RAM (source: iX 1/2006). >> Differences like that usually point out a poor interaction between =20= >> the files and the make process. [...] > > As far as I know they use the wide spreaded tools automake, =20 > autoconf, libtool and pkgconfig to prepare the build process. I'm =20 > sure most users noticed that executing ./configure takes a lot of =20 > time in many cases. It may be that 7.0 takes so much time because =20 > it is frequently testing whether strlen() exists or not. :-P > > Bj=F6rn That's actually one of the crappiest parts about configuring =20 software packages. Half of the packages I installed were headers, so =20 why in the world should so many requirements be made to install =20 header files =3D) (even though, I am aware that inside the header may =20= be functions that call strlen(), for instance, as well as other =20 common C/C++ functions)? My personal thought on the issue? I believe that they should = mass =20 package all of the headers and prototypes into a metapackage, as well =20= as the smaller packages, just for people initially installing X =20 (former choice), as well as people just upgrading a module and =20 nothing much else (the latter case). -Garrett=