On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 01:42:43AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote: > I am willing to expend significant work on this; indeed, I'm in the > middle of my rejuvinated xlibs work, and am prepared to put in the work > to disable the libs on the server side - all the packaging work that > would be needed to transition to using fd.o xlibs. I should ask whether you think it's a good idea to have a conversation about who should be packaging fd.o's xlibs for Debian, especially given that you expect them to supersede the libraries shipped by the current xfree86 package. We do have a procedure for this sort of thing: http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-pkgs.en.html#s-adopting -- G. Branden Robinson | It's extremely difficult to govern Debian GNU/Linux | when you control all three branches branden@debian.org | of government. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- John Feehery
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature