Merged proto package

[Florian Mickler]

On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 09:45:01 +0200
Luc Verhaegen <libv at skynet.be> wrote:

> 
> But don't the protocol headers each have packages depending on them 
> separately, so that an update of the amalgamut triggers an update of 
> many of the packages above the protocol header amalgamut?

is this a valid concern? 
what libraries and packages depend on the new xproto package and how
backwards-incompatible are the changes done to these proto's normally?

what other packages depend on these which do not depend on the xserver?

> 
> So, either tackle the real issue, which is that of lacking (build time) 
> compatibility of both the xserver and the drivers (imagine being able to 
> build an xserver that is compatible with a slightly older dri2 -- then 
> you do not have to update the proto either, and you can just drop in 
> the new xserver and test all the other bits of it just fine without 
> changing anything else in your system), or own up to the fact that 
> you're going for a full re-modularization.
> 
> Luc Verhaegen.

the thing is, that i get the feeling, that some of the driver writers
don't want to have this n:m relationship between xserver and
video-driver because they make fundamental changes to both(?) codebases
which require parallel codepaths for different versions and thus split
the testing coverage... they want xserver and driver to be 1:1.
but this is about the proposed merge of the proto packages.. let's not
get carried away.

cheers,
Flo

p.s.: starting off in a thread with personal insults is probably not
the best strategy if you want to be taken for full...