On 06/21/18 07:30 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2018-06-19 at 22:11 -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersm...@oracle.com> writes:
and the most likely outcome will be many people recommending you move
to anything but Imake, and maybe offering to make you the maintainer of X.Org's
version so we can stop paying attention to it too.
I don't think we even want imake in the X.org repository anymore. I'd
suggest that the CDE developers are likely the best candidates to own
that project at this point, unless they decide to switch to something
more modern as we have.
I did some quick spelunking. Our copy of imake.c starts at X.org 6.6,
and there's about +1100/-500 of changes to ours between the import and
X.org 7.0, at which point (unsurprisingly) it basically stops seeing
any code changes. CDE's copy appears to be from somewhen between X.org
6.4 and 6.6, as it doesn't include any of the changes between 6.6
(XFree86 4.0) and XFree86 4.3. It's been relicensed to LGPLv2+, and is
about +400/-300 from its state when it was imported. Most of the change
in both is the conversion from K&R to ANSI.
I don't think it'd be a huge amount of work to merge the two, but as
X.org we're still allergic to non-MIT code I think.
Yeah, if the CDE fork is not MIT licensed, then I think Keith's idea is
best that we just stop maintaining our fork and tell distros who still
want to ship Imake to get it from CDE instead. It's also far more likely
to be maintained by people who still use it, unlike those of us who quit
using Imake a decade ago.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@oracle.com
Oracle Solaris Engineering - https://blogs.oracle.com/alanc
_______________________________________________
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
