On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 08:04:31AM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > Daniel Stone wrote: > | On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 02:00:12AM -0500, X Strike Force SVN Repository > Admin wrote: > | I think this is a bad idea, because the head of Xprint development is > | now X.Org, and this creates unnecessary divergence between the XFree86 > | and X.Org packaging, making it harder to merge changes, and even more > | likely that regressions will slip through, and will serve only to > | further delay the introduction of X.Org into Debian due to these side > | effects. > > uh? how so? it is just one bit splitted out of xfree that will be managed > as external package -> modularization. My main problem is with the packaging -- I try to keep in sync with Debian's XFree86 packaging, and each bit of drift makes it that bit harder. But also, as I understand it, the head of Xprint development is now xc/programs/Xserver in X.Org -- i.e, what we ship in the xorg package. If I'm right, this means either Drew has to perform a partial build of the monolithic tree, or something like that, and drift will occur between the xorg and xprint packaging (remember that they share a DIX, e.g). But, Drew's a greater authority on Xprint than I, and I don't doubt that you guys have all thought it through; I was just registering my concerns as someone affected by it; more or less the same concerns I had back in December[0]. > | If this change is to further ease packaging of the behemoth-esque > | monolithic tree, then it is understandable. But if it is to improve > | the life of Xprint users, then it does not do so, because they can > | always still install xprt-xprintorg, and it will actually make their > | life worse when X.Org moves into Debian, and this introduction, as I > | have stated earlier, will be delayed, in my opinion. > | > | Don't get me wrong, I would love to see the back of Xprint, and to see > | a fully modular tree with an external Xprint. But as that's what's > | not happening, I see no reason why this commit is anything other than > | counterproductive, especially when xprt-xprintorg is already available, > | and has been for some time. I would therefore strongly encourage this > | commit to be reverted. > > I don't see how this can delay the transition to X.org in Debian. > The same change of non-shipping xprt will be preserved later on as part > of the modularization. Also, Drew itself expressed the wish to remove > Xprt from Xfree due to its buginess and he committed to maintain > xprint-xorg. Sure. My main point was that, because Debian's XFree86 packages and the only currently available X.Org packages have diverged a bit in this regard, it will take longer to do all the changes again, make sure you didn't miss anything, etc, etc. Catching regressions has become more difficult. > I really can't see any bad side effect to this planned and already > evaluated decision. Fair enough. [0]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2004/12/msg00113.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature