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

Re: X Strike Force: let's work on xfree86/branches/4.3.0/sid



On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 09:56:16AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 06:49:19PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 1) Release 4.2.1-7 (it was on, then it was off, now it's on again).  See
> > http://necrotic.deadbeast.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/trunk/changelog?rev=44&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup
> > for why.  I think I can handle this, and LaMont Jones will thank me.  :)
> > (Even if everyone else will curse my name for it not being 4.3.0-1.  :-P)
> 
> Is there anything else that needs to be done in trunk/ to get it out as
> a 4.2.1-7? As it has to go out before 4.3.0, I don't see why it
> shouldn't take priority, if it needs work.

As far as I know, it just needs testing to make sure it builds on IA-64.
That's currently underway.

> > 2) The xlibs bustup.  Currently I envision:
[...]
> Why not a new xlibs-static package, or such, leaving xlibs-dev being no
> more than a metapackage?

Because traditionally Debian packages put static libraries in -dev
packages, even when there is no shared counterpart.

Of course, this keeps us from using xlibs-dev as a transition package
that ensures things don't unexpectedly vanish from people's systems.

Hmph.  Maybe xlibs-static-dev and xlibs-static-pic?

> > 	* xlibs-pic can continue to live on as a counterpart to
> > 	  xlibs-dev, except these static libraries will contain
> > 	  policy-violating PIC symbols.  I disagree with upstream's
> > 	  solution to the static/PIC problem and I think we should go
> > 	  ahead with Matthieu Herrb's solution from patch #046.
> 
> debian/patches/046_piclib_support.diff, from 4.2.1? If that's what
> you've decided, that's fine - you know a great deal more about PIC than
> I (or Jack Horwarth ;) do.

I'm not an expert on object file formats, but I'm pretty sure I
understand what Debian Policy requires in this regard.

> Well, we could make a 'core' package, with only a very small amount of
> binaries (xauth, xhost, that sort of thing), and then put everything
> else in the -bin package; either that, or have
> libx11-6-bin/libxext6-bin/libxmuu6-bin Provides: xauth.

Neither of these appeal much.  Oh well, the other points can be tackled
without binding us to a decision on this, and perhaps the Right Thing
will come through the haze as we work on it.

> 3) Bug porters.

I'd very much like to have port specialists as part of the "committing
team".

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |     If you have the slightest bit of
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     intellectual integrity you cannot
branden@debian.org                 |     support the government.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     -- anonymous

Attachment: pgpmCAXCTB_qr.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: