> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:39:16 -0700 > From: Alan Coopersmith <[email protected]> > > I suppose I left out my thinking about why it's useful to port the > X.Org apps to xcb. Clearly the mainstream distros are going to have > to ship libX11 until approximately the end of time_t - there's just > too many thousands of existing applications out there from the last > 25 years. I could see embedded or minimized systems being able to > get by without libX11 in the not-too-distant future, once we get all > the software they need to use ported (and I'd think they're more > likely to use modern/maintained software from GNOME, KDE, etc. than > our ancient Xaw sample apps for their core desktop software) - from > the above list the top priority for that would probably be xinit.
Heh, that's reassuring. > But every app we port ourselves gives us more insight into what is > needed to port apps, and figure out how to make it easier for > authors/maintainers of the much more complicated apps out there in > the rest of the world. From the xwininfo port, at least I learned > that a set of functions to convert properties between the various > encoding types (STRING/iso8859-1, COMPOUND_TEXT/iso2022, > UTF8_STRING) would be very useful to save replicating that in every > program. I imagine porting xrdb would give some similar insight > into what's needed for all the Xlib helper functions around resource > management. On the other hand, it is also beneficial to leave some of the core applications use libX11 to make sure it doesn't suffer too much bitrot. _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
