Daniel Stone <[email protected]> writes: > Ugh, please don't do that. I already get people (validly) complaining > that XKB is unintuitive enough ...
Yeah, but I don't want to stat 324 files and 26 directories. That seems like a worse plan. > You could just do everything under the data root directory, although I > guess spinning disks might not love that? Expensive, as you know. > That being said, I'm not opposed to doing caching given that I don't > really have any plans to merge xkbcomp in myself right now, but the > package-manager thing (while attractive) is just a total copout, and > will only lead to yet more confusion. How about just stat'ing the xkb directory itself? That would catch package updates that package the whole thing, and would be only a single stat instead of hundreds? Or would that be about the worst compromise possible, where package updates would get caught (which are the easiest to have clear the cache) while manual changes would not? -- [email protected]
pgp0nA7Mj7zhf.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
