On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 10:45 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: > It's unfortunate that doing this in a backwards compatible way would > break the argument order convention. It's too bad those didn't just > get added from the outset. Oh well, it probably won't hurt anything > significant.
It probably looked overkill at the time :-) Fop is buried under xmlto. Only libX11 uses XORG_WITH_FOP(no) which will still work as this would be requesting the version number "no" which does not exist. Only if someone used XORG_WITH_FOP(yes) would break. I won't lose sleep over that. > > If you want to use the version parameter in any other modules you'll > have to wait for the util-macros version bump, right? > To be safe, yes. Coming soon. > I am wondering if for libX11 we should not take this opportunity to use XORG_WITH_FOP([1.0]). This fixes the problem where fop crashes in the nls directory. Few people have 1.0 (not in any Debian distro yet), so it would be equivalent to the current "no". As more people upgrade, it would tell us if there are any other problems. I don't recall if there were other issues. There is some time before next release...
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
