On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 07:15:43AM +0200, Alexander Pohoyda wrote: >David Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> going back to 3.3. Unless someone comes up with a better solution, >> that's what I'm planning to do. > >OK, it seems to be the best solution in this situation. > >I dare to propose another solution, however: to delete the `geometry' >directory and created a new one (named `geometry2` or `geom` or >whatever) which will have companies as lowercased directories. > > >> Is there a reason why the extra geometry descriptions couldn't be added >> to the original 'hp' file instead of putting them in separate files in >> a subdirectory? XKB should allow multiple descriptions per file. > >Yes, that's right. This is not a limitaton of XKB. >If you have a look into newly created geometry, you'll see that it >already contains 3 sections, which are nested and re-used: >1. for the mouse stick >2. for the base frame and common buttons >3. for US keyboard layout. > >Some other geometries (like ibm/thinkpad) have also >4. for national layouts. > >I believe that this is a correct way to develop geometries for >related keyboards and I think that it is logical to combine them into >one file. >Knowing all the problems now, I would still prefer this solution. >I have already developed 4 geometry specifications and will continue >to do so. I don't want to create problems, though :-)
OK, so if I understand you correctly, we can re-add the old 'hp' file, and add the omnibook descriptions to it. New descriptions for other vendor keyboards can be added to existing files rather than creating new directories. David -- David Dawes Founder/committer/developer The XFree86 Project www.XFree86.org/~dawes _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
