Randy McMurchy wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 01/09/06 18:21 CST: > > >>To all those building X11R7: > > > By the way, in the past a major version update of X brought new > functionality to the table. What Andy said earlier is really bothering > me. If 7.0 is essentially the same as 6.8.2, why was there an update > to the revisioning scheme. > > Surely, a new build method is not worthy of a major release revision, > when nothing really changes functionality-wise. Am I missing something > here?
Actually I think a 7.0 for changing to a modular system is smart. The numbering is designed to get those first-adopters to move to the new system. After it is in place and accepted, changes can be made to many packages at an accelerated pace. Also, users can theoretically pick and choose. For instance, I use KDE. Do I really need twm? xterm? xclock? xkill? ... On the other hand, if there is a decent upgrade to the X server (Xorg), do I really need to rebuild the entire system or just one program? With a modular system, the answer is no. I think many of the major distros will jump on this. In other words, the new system provides average LFSers and others like them with a lot of flexibility. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
