Re: rman (PolyglotMan) + TkMan are now under the Artistic License.
On Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 04:08:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 10:33:38AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 01:13:21AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > 4.0 and 4.0.1 are substantially different; it would help if you would
> > Well, i don't think they are so different, apart from more drivers support and
> > the DRI stuff updated. But anyway, the incompatibility came from wine not
> > liking thread enabled mesa, which is present in all X installs (just mesa, no
> > DRI stuff) as well as woody mesa ...
> They are quite different in the bugfix department! Dozens, if not
> hundreds, of patches applied since 4.0 declare themselves to be bugfixes.
> Therefore, if someone is seeing a bug in XFree86 4.x, I want to be sure
> that "x" = "0.1".
Ok, will do, ...
> > > Probably, but I understand Red Hat is cooking up a wrapper library that
> > > will somehow figure out which of several Mesa (GL) versions is demanded and
> > > LD_PRELOAD the right one for the application.
> > This seems somewhat heavy to me, best would be to switch to purely XF4 for
> > woody, and keep the 3.3.6 server as compatibility stuff, don't know exactly,
> We're going to be keeping some 3.x server binaries as well. We have to,
> unless we're going to tell some of our users to throw away their old video
do you know exactly which graphic boards are not supported in XF4 ? i think i
read something about all hardware supported in previous version is also
supported in XF4 (well, maybe not as well, but still you can use it).
And anyway, until woody ships, surely all boards will be supported ...
> > Well, this surely comes from the fact that often your tone suggest that you
> > want everything done by yourself
> I want to be careful what I delegate, because (as I'm sure you can attest)
> no one deserves to be on the receiving end of my frustration when X is
> being recalcitrant. As it happens, Stephen R. Gore and I have worked it
> out so that he will maintain the 3.3.x servers once I have finished
> Debianing 4.0.
Good news, ...
> Anyway, recall the mythical man-month. You can only split one task up so
> much before you lose more than you gain.
but i guess maintaing X, especially XF4, is not one task, but lot of different
small tasks ?
> > Well, my opinion is that a team work (in the manner of boot-floppies) would
> > maybe be the best approch to the huge beast that is xfree, especially since
> > XF4 now includes lot of other libs that were not included before (especially
> > the mesa/GL stuff).
> Up to a point. Like I said, mythical man-month effects.
Well, but having the mesa & xfree maintainer speaking together on a common
purely maintainer mailing list would be nice maybe ?
> > But when i told you this some time ago, i was told to mind
> > my own business ...
> At the time I didn't have space in my mind to handle 4.0. Now I do (or I'm
> trying to). I do not want to cross bridges before I come to them.
> The main decision to be made is how much of what XF4 builds should be
> shipped. Anything we don't ship as part of X, obviously, can be handled by
Well, at first i thought i will only build the server, and reuse the old 3.3.6
stuff that shipped with debian, this didn't work too well (because of keyboard
problems, xterm colorhandling got broken, and some other stuff i don't
remember right now) so now i build all of X and have it replace the 3.3.6
stuff, which i keep around only to satisfy the dpkg dependencies.
I installed the stuff in /usr/X11R6.4, have it use /etc/X11/XF86Config.4, and
put it earlier than /usr/X11R6 stuff in both /etc/ld.so.conf and $PATH.
This works more or less. didn't manage to install it as nicely on my work box
Also XF4 now support multihead quite nicely, but most windows manager are not
aware of it, i think.
> others. If that includes Mesa, that's fine with me. But one person at a
> time has to build and upload the X packages.
That is ok, ...
but still making XF4 the default for woody will need adaptation in more than
just the XF packages.
> > Well, i am not saying that i am either, but i am doing some driver work right
> > now, and will maybe be doing some DRI work in the future, and you pick up some
> > stuff by the way ...
> > I have also been running XF4 on top of debian since some time now.
> Well, if we can learn to speak to each other just the right way, I look
> forward to sharing knowledge with you. :)
> > 4.0.1 naturraly, 4.0 is very outdated, and as xfree developper, i consider it
> > my duty to run the lastmost release of it, to do testing ...
> I would do so myself except I simply don't have a machine to spare for that
no problem, like said, there is more than enough work to share.
That said, upgrading from 4.0 to 4.0.1 (through all intermediate devel
versions) caused no major problems for me.
> > (btw, about matroxfb, Petr (the matroxfb maintainer) told me that he will not
> > support XF4 until there is a debian package of it ...)
> Which Petr is this? That is an interesting attitude to take. Holding
> development efforts hostage based up on the development activities of
> another volunteer doesn't strike me as very neighborly. Nevertheless, I
Petr Vandrovec, and i guess, since he is working on fbdev, he don't want to
mess up his nice debian installation, I can understand that, and like you
said, there are only so much hours in the day.
> hope to have .debs of some sort within the next couple of days.
Count on me for testing them ....