On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, David Dawes wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 10:57:04AM -0800, Mark Vojkovich wrote:
> >On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Frank Gießler wrote:
> >
> >> Mark Vojkovich wrote:
> >> > We don't care what the filenames are except for the header files.
> >> > The only reason why we care about header files is that a driver
> >> > might include support for both and may need both include paths.
> >> > There's only one exported header file. I'd like to name it Xaa.h
> >> > to match the namespace. Is it really going to be relevant on
> >> > case-unaware systems? Which ones are those BTW?
> >>
> >> There is already xaa.h. Having Xaa.h included at the same time is a
> >> no-op for OS/2, for which there are already binaries for 4.4.0 available
> >> (I would therefore consider this a well supported platform).
> >>
> >
> > Well, then I guess I could call the header file xaa2.h
>
> Not to be too picky, but won't this be the third version of XAA, not the
> second?
Yes, it's actually the third. Harm's was the first. I think we
even advertised XFree86 4.x's XAA as 2.0. Would you prefer xaa3.h ?
Mark.
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
