Re: ITITP: xprint (X.org)
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.
The name "xprint-xorg" may be slighly misleading since it is not based
on the plain X.org source; I am using a tree based on the X.org tarballs
with tons of my own patches to get the little monster working...
What about "xprint-xprintorg" ? :)
> > 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.
Mhhh, do yuo mean that you want to make /usr/X11R6/bin/Xprt a softlink
to the real binary ? That may be a solution...
...but to be honestly... having the a broken Xprt binary around screams
for trouble... I do not feel good with having two binaries around - one
working, one broken...
> What do
> you think? Alternatively, we could just have xprt-xorg replace xprt, as you
> suggested above.
That may be the better solution for now since the Xfree86 Xprt binary
has more than one issue which renders it completely unuseable... ;-(
We can always switch back to the Xfree86 source tree when the fixes I am
going to contribute to X.org have been ported to the single vendor trees
(which includes Xfree86.org's tree).
> 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).
Yes, but I assume it will take - at least - another six months before we
can expect fixed versions from Xfree86's code base...
> 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
See my comment above; the name "X.org" does not match perfectly here
(which reminds me that my Xprt version identifies itself still with
"X.org" when you query it with xdpyinfo...xx@@!!!... ;-( ) ... something
like "Xprint.org" fits better in here... :)
__ . . __
(o.\ \/ /.o) Roland.Mainz@informatik.med.uni-giessen.de
/O /==\ O\ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
(;O/ \/ \O;) TEL +49 641 99-41370 FAX +49 641 99-41359
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org