RE: [xougen] Regarding server side widgets

[David Ross]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden 
> [mailto:address@hidden
>  On Behalf Of Tyler Hall
> Sent: 2003 August 29 7:53 PM
> To: address@hidden
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [xougen] Regarding server side widgets
...
<snipped>
...
> And what if I'm a user (not a developer) who wants to download the 
> latest driver for my 3dfx card in my i386-based machine, 
> should I have to:
> - download the full source tree
> - patch the files scattered throughout the full tree to implement the 
> driver update
> - compile the _full_ tree (because I just downloaded it and haven't 
> compiled it before), including even the SPARC video drivers
> OR would be more convenient to:
> - download the XCommon, XServerLib, XVideoDriver-3dfx 
> packages (or if I 
> already had the tree downloaded I can just download the 
> XVideoDriver-3dfx package to replace the older one)
> - ./configure examines what I have and don't have, adjusts Makefiles 
> accordingly
> - compile the stuff I want, only the stuff I want.
> 
> Keeping the tree as it stands right now offers no such modularity. We 
> need to reorganize the source to allow such modularity, not 
> just to make 
> life easier for binary packers, but for those developers who wish to 
> contribute to just one module.
> 
> Tyler
> 

Hi All,

I absolutely agree that what should be compiled should only be what is
needed, and/or only what is needed should be loaded.  Similar to the
Linux method of configuration for compilation and for the modules too.
But what I have read about imake vs. the GNU Autotools is that imake is
not very flexible in this regard.  Or am I dead wrong?  Perhaps we need
to add another level/layer of abstraction on top of imake?  I also read
that there where some other problems with imake because it used the
c-pre-processor, what has/have your experiences been?

Thanks,
David