Re: xlib6g now depends on xfree86-common (?)
Branden Robinson <branden@ecn.purdue.edu> writes:
> If someone wants to implement a C++ library, Java library, or a bunch of
> E-LISP files to implement the X protocol, there is no reason they should be
> kept from doing so. And there is no reason that X clients using such tools
> should be forced to declare a dependency on xlib6g, which is only useful to
> programs written in C.
This has in fact already happened some time ago, as can be witnessed
by CLX, which is an implementation of the X protocol for and in Common
Lisp, and has been the de-facto standard for Common Lisp X programs
for quite some time (see X11 contrib tapes). And indeed it has
already been packaged for Debian, as part of Peter Van Eynde's CMU CL
packages (cmucl-clx).
Regs, Pierre.
--
Pierre Mai <pmai@acm.org> http://home.pages.de/~trillian/
"One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft-
bashing." [Microsoft memo, see http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]
Reply to: