On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:32:18 -0700, Alan Coopersmith <[email protected]> wrote:
> How would updating different protocols work - if xrandr & dri2 updates were > both in progress, then we couldn't have a stable version of either until both > were ready? Or would we just force protocol development to live on branches > until it was ready to be frozen and merge to master? Right. I would expect the protocol package to track the server release schedule, which should make things reasonably sane. People are encouraged to publish repositories of proto and server bits before they're ready to be merged. > And do we really need everything in the proto module? xf86rushproto & > lg3dproto seem particularly pointless to include. printproto seems like > it should stay separately available for those who still need to build libXp > for binary compatibility, but doesn't need to be in the main proto module > for everyone. Yeah, I merged everything. It's trivial to reduce the set as it's all entirely scripted though. We probably shouldn't package anything that the server doesn't actually use :-) -- [email protected]
pgpzTjkziUvs0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
