Moe Trin wrote:
>>Needless to say, the source to be compiled for XFree86 did
>>not compile successfully (I think it may be designed to go
>>with a 2.4.x kernel, the sort of antique item Debheads so love).
>
> Ah, so you are a complete failure and couldn't find a clue if
> surrounded by them. No, troll - it doesn't depend on the kernel,
> but I guess you don't know the first thing about reading documentation.

No, you are completely wrong.

If one chooses the compilation route, one needs to compile a DRM
module, a kernel module. A patch needs to be applied to Daenzer's
DRM module source (in the package "drm-mach64-module-src") to get
it to compile against the 2.6.7 kernel.

The patch is available here:

http://www.hjsoft.com/~glynis/mach64...-2.6.patch.txt.

Even then, the DRM source it will not compile unless the the file
"<kernel-src>/debian/rules" has been generated. That is, it will not
compile against vanilla source obtained from "http://www.kernel.org".
And even if one generates the "rules" file, the compilation fails on
some modules. Fortunately, the mach64 module is not one of them,
so you can choose to compile that alone.

Take note: in case you find my words challenging: "source to be
compiled for XFree86" is not equivalent to "XFree86 source".

No doubt you will dismiss what I have written as the words of a troll,
because, for thin-skinned individuals like you, any criticism of your
beloved Debian must be the work of a troll.

Oh, btw: in which century will an official Debian X.Org package be
made available?

Cheers,

R.