Re: Upcoming X.org release and splitting packages

[Harold L Hunt II <huntharo at msu dot edu>]

Frédéric L. W. Meunier wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
>
>
> > We will soon (possibly next week) be releasing a new version
> > of all Cygwin/X packages built from the source code tree
> > managed by X.org and hosted on freedesktop.org.  This will be
> > a very good thing since all of the Cygwin/X developers will
> > be able to stay in sync with the exact code that is in
> > distribution via CVS, compared to our current system today
> > where the code in distribution has many differences from that
> > in CVS.  The rebuild won't mean much to end users: all
> > libraries remain binary compatible with the current packages
> > and the contents of the release (programs, etc.) will be
> > almost identical.
>
>
> What are the main differences between it and XFree86 4.4.0 ?
> Are things like XTerm 185 included, or everything that goes to
> XFree86 can't to X.org ?

I don't know about XTerm 185 specifically, but this release should 
contain all fixes and features that were added to the XFree86 project's 
source code tree for the 4.4.0 release.

> > 2) Split the "bin" package into at least a few pieces (but not too many
> > pieces):
> >
> > 2a) "bin-dlls" will contain the .dll files only.  This would allow
> > packages like emacs or xemacs to depend only on bin-dlls instead of on
> > the entire bin package which includes programs not used by emacs nor xemacs.
>
>
> Maybe do the same for Lesstif ?

Heh, one thing at a time.  :)

> > 2b) "bin-lndir" would contain the lndir utility.  lndir has
> > no dependence on X libs and can be used by any programmer for
> > non-X projects.
>
>
> Nice. lndir is very useful when a /path/to/configure options
> doesn't work as expected due to lack of Automake support or
> brokeness.

Yup, I use it all the time for that.

> > 2c) "bin-apps" would contain all other applications
> > originally contained in "bin" but not contained in "bin-dlls"
> > nor "bin-lndir".
>
>
> I thought you'd split it more, like only adding what's really
> essential, and move xbiff, xclock, xedit, xman, etc to a
> separate package. But how to know what's essential ? And I
> guess imake, makedepend, /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/config, etc could
> go in "devel" ?

Well, I am debating whether or not to start going down this slippery 
slope... two or three category types of packages may be okay I suppose.

Harold