Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:14:53 -0800 (PST) From: Joseph Garcia <bear@unix.homeip.net> To: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is Mesa really needed for QT 2.3.1? Message-ID: <20020111160647.A75924-100000@we-24-126-232-105.we.mediaone.net> In-Reply-To: <200201120115.14222@zappa.athame.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Andy Fawcett wrote: > The Qt port builds two versions of the library. One is built with Mesa > support, the other not. Hmmm, well is it possible to just build a version of the library which does not have support for Mesa? Or would that break things? The reason is that I'm trying to keep down the number of installed ports on this system by trying to keep from installing unecessary ports. If it's possible to do so, how would I go by doing it? I have compiled qt on it's own (i.e. not using the ports system) so I know that it will compile without Mesa3D. But the question is, what do I tweak in the Makefile in the ports in order for it to not bother with Mesa. That's where I'm stumped. > It's not been upgraded because "2.3.2 is broken". It causes problems > with KDE, so the port remains at 2.3.1 That makes sense. > For reference, the maintainer should be listed in the Makefile for the > port. Ah, that's what I assumed, but I wanted to make sure of that. Thanks!! Joey To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020111160647.A75924-100000>