The fundamental problem with X is that implementation artifacts show
up in the protocol. Thus, in general, it's not possible for it to be
backwards compatible.
This follows from its underlying design goals: implementation, not
policy, make money for the vendors, don't support a remote execution
On Sat, Aug 29, 1998 at 08:09:06PM -0700, Jim Pick wrote:
One argument I've heard is that it makes disk partitioning easier
(ie. /usr/X11R6 can be split off to another partition) - but that's
not a strong argument, IMHO.
That argument is bogus. /usr/lib is considerably larger than
/usr/X11R6,
On Sun 30 Aug 1998, Guy Maor wrote:
By that reasoning all X11 binaries should be placed in /usr/X11R6 so
that you can have different versions of them compiled with your
different versions of X.
you have one gcc in /usr. and you can have any number of additional gcc's in
/usr/* like
Hi,
Joseph == Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joseph The FSSTND tollerates /usr/X11R6, but only for backwards
Joseph compatibility with X11R5 or something like that. I need to
Joseph doublecheck the FHS on this.
__
Hi,
Andreas == Andreas Jellinghaus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andreas On Sun 30 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Not until you show me an upgrade path to R7 and X12. The
current method allows for co-existance of several releases of X
(barring our own bad /etc/X11 directory). Until an
On Sun, Aug 30, 1998 at 12:02:19AM -0400, Alex Yukhimets wrote:
Sounds like a cool idea to me. Let's do it!
Sorry, but NO!
Let's do this experiments with Hurd, ok?
There are some traditions of UNIX that I would hate to see broken.
Debian does not seem to like to stick with traditions
This is going to be a pretty tough policy decision to make. Right
now, we've got several people who are holding positions for or
against different proposals. That's not going to move us any closer
to a resolution of this policy question. That's a sign that we might
have to move to a more
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian does not seem to like to stick with traditions without good
rationale. Nobody has given a good rationale yet for keeping /usr/X11R6.
I think we shouldn't be the only Linux dist. that does this. If we
were the biggest one
On Mon, Aug 31, 1998 at 09:26:16AM -0700, Jim Pick wrote:
This is going to be a pretty tough policy decision to make. Right
now, we've got several people who are holding positions for or
against different proposals. That's not going to move us any closer
to a resolution of this policy
Hi,
Jim == Jim Pick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim This is going to be a pretty tough policy decision to make. Right
Jim now, we've got several people who are holding positions for or
Jim against different proposals. That's not going to move us any closer
Jim to a resolution of this policy
Hi,
The proposal recieved an unanimous approval, with 15 votes
being cast. T think that this pretty much does it.
I shall be asking for a CVS area to be set up for the policy
documents, with the current set of volunteers be given the rights to
modification. Once that is done,
Hi folks,
The following guidelines for updating policy documents has
been accepted by the debian-policy group. After a few adminstrative
details have been taken care of, the policy shall be back in
business (as in, a live document once again).
manoj
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim Does anybody have any pointers to the current
Jim proposed constitution/policy setup?
Look at http://master.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/policy/
Thank you.
Because I don't have enough time to read the volumes of email on the
Debian
13 matches
Mail list logo
