On 1/5/06, Adam Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We've got five DDXes that are complex enough to need or want auxiliary tools > or config bits. Right now we have: > > xorg/Xprint > xorg/XpConfig > xorg/hw/xfree86 > xorg/hw/xfree86/utils > xorg/hw/dmx > xorg/hw/dmx/config > xorg/hw/darwin > xorg/hw/darwin/utils > xorg/hw/xwin > xorg/hw/xwin/xlaunch > > For parallelism I'd rather see the Xprint DDX moved under hw and its config > bits under that: > > xorg/hw/Xprint > xorg/hw/Xprint/XpConfig > xorg/hw/xfree86 > xorg/hw/xfree86/utils > ... > > Does anyone have a compelling case against this?
See below. > If not I'll probably shuffle > this around sometime this weekend. It does not sound not logical to me - Xprint DDX is no physical hardware so why should it be tagged as such? Julien -- Julien Lafon Senior Staff Engineer, Hitachi _______________________________________________ Xprint mailing list [email protected] http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/xprint
