Merged proto package

[Peter Hutterer]

On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:33:22AM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> On 2010-04-06 17:41, Keith Packard wrote:
> >I've written some scripts that construct a merged proto package from the
> >existing proto packages. They're not fancy, but do preserve the entire
> >history of each sub package as they get merged in.
> >
> >The goal is to make the installed files exactly match what the existing
> >packages install, so that no API or ABI changes would exist. This
> >includes installing per-extension .pc files with the current version
> >numbers.
> >
> >Please let me know whether this seems like a good plan, and if so, I'll
> >move it into the /git/xorg tree and we can work on deprecating the
> >individual protocol packages.
> >
> >Testing and comments welcome.
> 
> Some comments from the POV of both a distributor and one who deals
> with a system-unique DDX:
> 
> 1) Keeping per-extension proto .pc files makes sense wrt to
> compatibility, but perhaps keeping all the old version number
> schemes does not.  For example, in the future, if a package requires
> compositeproto >= 0.4.2 (after some future update), how will anybody
> know which version of the all-in-one "proto" package provides that
> version of compositeproto?

export them as separate variables in the pc file. That's probably better
than the current situation where the protocol version is sort-of tied to the
package version, which screws us both ways. you get to either break the wire
version for updating the packages or you push out an backwards-incompatible
packaging change with only a patchlevel bump.

Cheers,
  Peter