On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 05:22:13PM +0100, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 05:20:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > For reference: m68k is the only released architecture that doesn't have
> > X4 uploaded yet.
> I know that.
I figured. :) It was the bit after that I thought might be helpful :)
> > At a guess, it's probably worthwhile uploading just the X client side of
> > X4 for m68k, which should at least mean that if X4 is added to testing
> > (woody), the only thing that'll be broken is the X server, rather than
> > a thousand otherwise innocent packages...
> What is "the client side"? Everything but xserver-*? Should I just remove
> them from the changelog?
> Just a broken X server means you can not run X on m68k, right? I don't
> think thats too desirable. But after all the feedback from the m68k users on
> X4.0 was not very high, so maybe X4 in testing is worth mor ethan a broken X
> on m68k.
Well, the X client libraries and the X server are separate. I'm by no
means an X expert, but at worst I'd imagine it'd be possible to just
maintain the old m68k xserver-fbdev package as part of xfree86v3.
If necessary, I think I can hack around things and arrange to keep
xserver-fbdev in woody until someone tells me otherwise, if that's
helpful (it's part of the old xfree86-1 package as is the old xlib6g;
keeping around one part of it and not another will probably turn out
to be a bit awkward, but for the short term, it shouldn't be a problem).
You'd have to check with Branden about any technicalities though, I've
no idea. And naturally, having a working xserver-xfree86 would be a much
simpler and better result in all counts...
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Thanks to all avid pokers out there''
-- linux.conf.au, 17-20 January 2001
Attachment:
pgpl56OHPILtj.pgp
Description: PGP signature