Re: upgrade stable -> unstabl e doesn´twork
Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 06:00:12PM +0100, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> > > > > > > So X402 will be in woody sometime soon (perhaps the next
> > > > > > > version) ? I was told that no.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It should be as soon as m68k will build the package, don't know
> > > > > > what the problem is, maybe there are build problems on m68k, or
> > > > > > maybe it takes just time.
> >
> > BTW this topic is outdated; Anthony announced yesterday that X4 is in
> > testing now.
>
> Aha? How come it works now?
X4 is getting a special treatment...
> > > Alternatively: would it be possible to hack a quick layer between the
> > > XFree86 module loader system and the standard dl* system we already
> > > have?
I forgot to mention that the modules can actually be built for dl* style. But
it's not recommended.
> > > XFRee86 mainly wrote their own system to work around bugs in dl* systems
> > > on non-Linux OSses, which is something we don't have to care about.
> >
> > That's not the whole truth. The XFree86 module loader allows for platform
> > independence.
>
> That's the reasoning behind the modular system. But not the whole reasoning
> behing the let's-write-our-own-loader system.
It isn't? :) It is for all I know, because the OS specific APIs are hidden
behind well-defined, OS neutral XFree86 APIs.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper) \ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
CS student, Free Software enthusiast \ XFree86 and DRI project member
Reply to: