On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 14:24:29 -0400, Gaetan Nadon <[email protected]> wrote:
> I like that. I am not sure, but are the old *.pc realy needed? It adds a > little bit to existing complexity: Just for compatibility with existing users. > For backward compatibility, if config file ask for old package, then old > package should be installed. Nope. The new package provides the files, we just need to let old users know they're present. > As for xproto itself, we need to make sure it won't suffer from previous > versions being installed. Otherwise, it may be better to use a new name > all together. Again, not sure, consider these statements as test > cases. Version numbers in xproto will suffice to distinguish here. > On another note, should the xproto.pc be installed in "share" ($datadir) > rather than "lib" ($libdir) directory? All protos are architecture > independent. Perhaps, except that we wouldn't overwrite an existing xproto.pc file. I'd rather preserve compatibility across this transition and consider a possible move in the future. -- [email protected]
pgpaeWeKvxrgr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
