On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:33:22AM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: > On 2010-04-06 17:41, Keith Packard wrote: > >I've written some scripts that construct a merged proto package from the > >existing proto packages. They're not fancy, but do preserve the entire > >history of each sub package as they get merged in. > > > >The goal is to make the installed files exactly match what the existing > >packages install, so that no API or ABI changes would exist. This > >includes installing per-extension .pc files with the current version > >numbers. > > > >Please let me know whether this seems like a good plan, and if so, I'll > >move it into the /git/xorg tree and we can work on deprecating the > >individual protocol packages. > > > >Testing and comments welcome. > > Some comments from the POV of both a distributor and one who deals > with a system-unique DDX: > > 1) Keeping per-extension proto .pc files makes sense wrt to > compatibility, but perhaps keeping all the old version number > schemes does not. For example, in the future, if a package requires > compositeproto >= 0.4.2 (after some future update), how will anybody > know which version of the all-in-one "proto" package provides that > version of compositeproto?
export them as separate variables in the pc file. That's probably better than the current situation where the protocol version is sort-of tied to the package version, which screws us both ways. you get to either break the wire version for updating the packages or you push out an backwards-incompatible packaging change with only a patchlevel bump. Cheers, Peter _______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel