[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ITITP: xprint (X.org)



On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 01:07:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 03:53:32PM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
> > I would therefore like to take his standalone xprint code and package it for
> > Debian.  Any suggestions for naming?  xprint or xprt-x11 or ...??
> 
> I suggest xprint-xorg for the source package.  For the binary package I
> recommend a down-cased version of the server executable's name.
> 
...
> What is the name of the server binary that X.Org's xprint builds?  You
> may need to C/R/P the xprt package.
> 

The binary is called Xprt, same as XFree86's (they are, after all, the "same"
thing ;))  I've got Roland's binary sitting in /usr/local/bin for the time
being.  So I'd probably use xprt-xorg for the binary, consistent with
xprint-xorg for the source package.

> I imagine that when X.Org's xprint finally does trickle down into
> XFree86, I might want to rename my xprt package to xprint; certainly if
> the binary has changed its name, but this might also leave you free to
> package further developments in Xprint.  This would be similar to how
> Mesa is a separate software project from XFree86, and yet it also
> incorporated into the latter.  Thus my package is called "xlibmesa3",
> for instance.
> 
> I'm happy to work with you on ensuring that my XFree86 packages and your
> xprint package(s) coexist, or at least get each other out of the way
> gracefully.  :)
> 

Great :) Since the binaries have the same name, seems to me the best and
fairest thing is probably to rename both binaries, say Xprt-xfree86 and
Xprt-xorg, and use alternatives to select which one will be Xprt.  What do
you think?  Alternatively, we could just have xprt-xorg replace xprt, as you
suggested above. I'm anticipating that at some point the XFree86 version will
start working, and you might want to try both at the same time (they can in
fact both run at the same time, listening to different displays).

I think the assumption should be that XFree86 will eventually fix up its own
Xprint server, in which case the X.Org version won't be "required".  That is
to say, you could continue to name the XFree86 version in a way that
identifies it as Debian's default.  But I'm not sure about that, since I
suppose we could always assume Roland's X.Org version will always be
advanced ahead of the XFree86 version.

Roland, is it fair to identify your version as the "X.Org" version, in
contrast to Xfree86's version? Or would you prefer a different nomenclature,
given that your one hasn't necessarily been accepted yet into offical X.Org
sources?

Drew

-- 
PGP public key available at http://people.debian.org/~dparsons/drewskey.txt
Fingerprint: A110 EAE1 D7D2 8076 5FE0  EC0A B6CE 7041 6412 4E4A

Attachment: pgpLZNLQgfHJZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: