X is a bit slow
Christian H. Kuhn
official at qno.de
Thu Apr 22 05:55:22 PDT 2004
& dixit Ken Moffat:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Christian H. Kuhn wrote:
> So, it's just the dri that you're worried about.
> (i) debian is using XFree-4.really.old, or -4.fairly.old if you're
> I assume you've already looked through the X log to make sure it isn't
> moaning about anything, and checked glxinfo to confirm that dri is on.
So it is.
> Did you use an XF86Config from debian, or did you roll your own ? If
> you took it from debian, did you take the -4 version (debian seems to
> generate both, dunno if they're identical) ?
Kind of both. I made a new XF86Config-4, according to the book. Then i
changed some entries, p.e. for the mouse. Still, there are differences
in the Module section.
> (ii) drm modules are compiled with the same compiler you used for the
All compiled with 2.95.3.
> You will rightly tell me that you don't want to recompile X as well.
It's not me who compiles it but the compiler, and it can be done while i
sleep. In fact, i have recompiled X several times the last days, for
reasons i mentioned in another thread.
> In my opinion, the BLFS book hasn't kept up with dri - for almost
> everybody, the dri modules in recent 2.4 kernels should be up to date
> enough to just build them. The book's instructions are a hangover from
> when the kernel couldn't interface to anything newer than X-4.2.
I'm not sure that i understand what you are talking about. Does it mean
that the DRI kernel modules are overwritten with those from X? So should
i NOT copy the X DRI modules, or better, try which work faster?
More information about the blfs-support