On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 09:45:01 +0200 Luc Verhaegen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > But don't the protocol headers each have packages depending on them > separately, so that an update of the amalgamut triggers an update of > many of the packages above the protocol header amalgamut? is this a valid concern? what libraries and packages depend on the new xproto package and how backwards-incompatible are the changes done to these proto's normally? what other packages depend on these which do not depend on the xserver? > > So, either tackle the real issue, which is that of lacking (build time) > compatibility of both the xserver and the drivers (imagine being able to > build an xserver that is compatible with a slightly older dri2 -- then > you do not have to update the proto either, and you can just drop in > the new xserver and test all the other bits of it just fine without > changing anything else in your system), or own up to the fact that > you're going for a full re-modularization. > > Luc Verhaegen. the thing is, that i get the feeling, that some of the driver writers don't want to have this n:m relationship between xserver and video-driver because they make fundamental changes to both(?) codebases which require parallel codepaths for different versions and thus split the testing coverage... they want xserver and driver to be 1:1. but this is about the proposed merge of the proto packages.. let's not get carried away. cheers, Flo p.s.: starting off in a thread with personal insults is probably not the best strategy if you want to be taken for full... _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
