* libx11-diet removal
@ 2012-09-12 14:10 Burton, Ross
2012-09-12 14:23 ` Richard Purdie
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Burton, Ross @ 2012-09-12 14:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Purdie; +Cc: OE-devel, openembedded-core
On 12 September 2012 14:59, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I don't think there are many such users so I've merged the series. We've
> had this mess around for a long time, keep talking about fixing and now
> someone gives me a patch series so I really just can't resist ;-)
Thanks, Richard.
The final question is do we keep libx11-diet? It is substantially
smaller but the stubbing does knock out some non-deprecated
functionality - as far as I'm aware both GTK+ and Qt fail to
initialise with libx11-diet.
Two options:
1) delete it from oe-core
2) whoever actually uses it can have it, moving it from oe-core
I'll do (1) soonish unless someone speaks up in it's defence...
Ross
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: libx11-diet removal
2012-09-12 14:10 libx11-diet removal Burton, Ross
@ 2012-09-12 14:23 ` Richard Purdie
2012-09-12 15:09 ` Burton, Ross
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Richard Purdie @ 2012-09-12 14:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Burton, Ross; +Cc: OE-devel, openembedded-core
On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 15:10 +0100, Burton, Ross wrote:
> On 12 September 2012 14:59, Richard Purdie
> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > I don't think there are many such users so I've merged the series. We've
> > had this mess around for a long time, keep talking about fixing and now
> > someone gives me a patch series so I really just can't resist ;-)
>
> Thanks, Richard.
>
> The final question is do we keep libx11-diet? It is substantially
> smaller but the stubbing does knock out some non-deprecated
> functionality - as far as I'm aware both GTK+ and Qt fail to
> initialise with libx11-diet.
>
> Two options:
> 1) delete it from oe-core
> 2) whoever actually uses it can have it, moving it from oe-core
>
> I'll do (1) soonish unless someone speaks up in it's defence...
Is there any way to add in enough functionality that gtk/qt would work
but still save some space?
Cheers,
Richard
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: libx11-diet removal
2012-09-12 14:23 ` Richard Purdie
@ 2012-09-12 15:09 ` Burton, Ross
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Burton, Ross @ 2012-09-12 15:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Purdie; +Cc: OE-devel, openembedded-core
On 12 September 2012 15:23, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Is there any way to add in enough functionality that gtk/qt would work
> but still save some space?
The big piece that gets removed in diet is the Xlocale functionality -
this is what brings the size and the compatibility problems.
libX11 as it stands now is actually smaller than the old libX11-trim,
as some optional features in libX11 (Xcms, BigFont) are disabled by
default (packageconfig to turn them back on).
The important distinction is that libX11 is (practically) unpatched,
where as -diet is chopped up.
Ross
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-09-12 15:22 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-09-12 14:10 libx11-diet removal Burton, Ross
2012-09-12 14:23 ` Richard Purdie
2012-09-12 15:09 ` Burton, Ross
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.