Mailing List Archive

On 05:58 Wed 22 Aug , Hanno Böck wrote:
> With compiz 0.5.4, we get the first version that depends on xcb.
> While we still have an open bug asking for use-masking xcb
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174434
> I'd like to open the question just the other way round: When can we make xcb
> default?

We're kinda screwed till Java gets fixed. Yay for being held back by
proprietary software, again. Check bug #156353 for Sun Java.

> And: How should I handle that? We don't have a feature like "mask if use xcb
> isn't set", so it most probably means all compiz-versions from now on will be
> masked till we have xcb.

You'll have to be annoying and use built_with_use() + die() if unset.

Thanks,
Donnie
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Wed, 2007-22-08 at 05:58 +0200, Hanno Böck wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With compiz 0.5.4, we get the first version that depends on xcb.
> While we still have an open bug asking for use-masking xcb
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174434
> I'd like to open the question just the other way round: When can we make xcb
> default?
>
> And: How should I handle that? We don't have a feature like "mask if use xcb
> isn't set", so it most probably means all compiz-versions from now on will be
> masked till we have xcb.

Can't we just install xcb alongside regular Xlib ? If we can't, I would
favor making xcb the default. Its significantly better than the old
Xlib.

--
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

On 00:18 Wed 22 Aug , Olivier Crête wrote:
> Can't we just install xcb alongside regular Xlib ? If we can't, I would
> favor making xcb the default. Its significantly better than the old
> Xlib.

You could try it, but you might get inconsistent results when running a
non-XCB Xlib with apps that use both XCB and Xlib.

Thanks,
Donnie
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 00:18 Wed 22 Aug , Olivier Crête wrote:
>> Can't we just install xcb alongside regular Xlib ? If we can't, I would
>> favor making xcb the default. Its significantly better than the old
>> Xlib.
>
> You could try it, but you might get inconsistent results when running a
> non-XCB Xlib with apps that use both XCB and Xlib.

And with libtool's much-loved .la files ... -lxcb seeps into pretty much
everything that deps on Xlib and it's a PITA to take it out if you want
to switch useflags.

Cheers,

Rémi
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On 10:27 Wed 22 Aug , Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On 00:18 Wed 22 Aug , Olivier Crête wrote:
> >> Can't we just install xcb alongside regular Xlib ? If we can't, I would
> >> favor making xcb the default. Its significantly better than the old
> >> Xlib.
> >
> > You could try it, but you might get inconsistent results when running a
> > non-XCB Xlib with apps that use both XCB and Xlib.
>
> And with libtool's much-loved .la files ... -lxcb seeps into pretty much
> everything that deps on Xlib and it's a PITA to take it out if you want
> to switch useflags.

That's why I added INSTALL_MASK="*.la" to make.conf and deleted all mine.
Should do the trick in combination with --as-needed. Nothing's broken yet...

Thanks,
Donnie
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
> We're kinda screwed till Java gets fixed. Yay for being held back by
> proprietary software, again. Check bug #156353 for Sun Java.
>

There's a "sloppy locking" patch flying about[1] that basically eases
the xcb restrictions that usually cause apps to fail. It's triggered by
an environment variable, and is otherwise dormant. Granted, easing
locking assertions may result in broken programs, but if the programs
would fail the assertion but still run OK under normal Xlib, then
perhaps it's not too dirty a hack?
Mike 5:)

[1] https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251087
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGy/b0u7rWomwgFXoRAm6jAJ9VL5bjGdi7rxirOQcNwb6mN1HSMQCeLg2A
avB9CWGvr4N7PuZFsO8ya7w=
=ZGLv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Hanno Böck wrote:

> Hi,
>
> With compiz 0.5.4, we get the first version that depends on xcb.
> While we still have an open bug asking for use-masking xcb
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174434
> I'd like to open the question just the other way round: When can we make
> xcb default?

Is there a save way to change from non-xcb to xcb?
I'm asking because last time I changed from xcb to non-xcb (because I needed
java for a project), only un-setting the xcb USE-flag and rebuilding the
packages with changed USE-flags didn't really help but I rather had to
rebuild all gnome-/gtk-packages manually. Otherwise I got the
nice "xcb->lock" errors everywhere.

Cheers,
Tiziano

On Sa, 25.08.07 12:33 Tiziano Müller <dev-zero@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Hanno Böck wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > With compiz 0.5.4, we get the first version that depends on xcb.
> > While we still have an open bug asking for use-masking xcb
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174434
> > I'd like to open the question just the other way round: When can we
> > make xcb default?
>
> Is there a save way to change from non-xcb to xcb?
> I'm asking because last time I changed from xcb to non-xcb (because I
> needed java for a project), only un-setting the xcb USE-flag and
> rebuilding the packages with changed USE-flags didn't really help but
> I rather had to rebuild all gnome-/gtk-packages manually. Otherwise I
> got the nice "xcb->lock" errors everywhere.
>
> Cheers,
> Tiziano

I use the proposed libxcb patch from the b.g.o. bug entry.. both, java
and xcb work fine.

Cheers,
Tom