On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 01:14:30AM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote: > On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 00:39, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 09:44:20PM +0000, Anthraxz __ wrote: > > > The freebsd developpers are making some changes to the XFree86 ports to > > > reduce the pain associated with upgrading and maintaining XFree86. > > > > > > http://www.freebsdforums.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=16052 > > > > Debian doesn't share freebsd's bug of building everything on the > > target system, so this doesn't really apply. > > That's not the only point, there's also 'I also expect the > freedesktop.org libraries to stay better maintained and release more > frequently than XFree86's', e.g. I, personally, am all for using the fd.o libs, instead of xfree86. It might be worth noting that fd.o/xlibs upstream is Jim Gettys. He has a clue or twelve. The main pain is in breaking it out, confwise, and then packaging-wise. OTOH, it could make the xlibs transition that much easier, if we're not doing it in the framework of a massive, massive package anyway. > > > I found this idea very interesting. I think that the debian project should > > > take more advantage of the freedesktop.org libs. > > > > Glancing briefly at the packages in sid, we've been using the ones > > they have released for a while. Unreleased libraries do not belong in > > unstable. > > It's not about released vs. unreleased but XFree86 vs. freedesktop.org. And about how responsive/cluey the upstreams are, specifically. Daniel, dreaming of source package Xu-ification (no really; it would be a good thing). -- Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org> "The programs are documented fully by _The Rise and Fall of a Fooish Bar_, available by the Info system." -- debian/manpage.sgml.ex, dh_make template
Attachment:
pgphw2h3gCpjS.pgp
Description: PGP signature