Merged proto package

[Keith Packard]

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 02:33:22 -0500, "Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" <yselkowitz at users.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> 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?

Yeah, I don't have a great solution here, although we could start
shifting libraries and the server away from the per-extension version
numbers to the global version number. As those are the only consumers of
these package numbers, it should be entirely feasible to make the next
X.org release not use the individual protocol version numbers.

> 2) Not all platforms support all extensions, so they do not need all the 
> protos.  For example, Cygwin does not support DRI2, XV or XF86* (except 
> BigFont); OTOH WindowsWM is only for Cygwin (and perhaps MinGW?) and 
> AppleWM is similarly only for Darwin.  Installing protos which are not 
> supported may lead some to some false positive configure tests (e.g. ah, 
> X11/extensions/Xv.h is installed, you must support Xv!  Wrong.)  This 
> could be fixed with some configure options and AM_CONDITIONAL hackery.

The protocol headers and libraries are entirely OS agnostic, so
applications running under Cygwin could easily contact an X server that
*does* support almost any of these extensions.

> 3) Can't fontcacheproto be removed as well?

Yes, the server doesn't use it.

> 4) The *PROTO_VERSION AC_SUBSTs for removed protos should also be
> removed.

I tried to remove those as well; did I miss some?

> 5) Perhaps reorganizing the headers into a structure resembling an 
> installed tree may make more sense:

I'm not sure that's entirely necessary; the current organization nicely
separates the different specifications into different directories.

> Besides being more logical in setup, this would allow building against 
> an uninstalled "proto" (OTOH I'm not sure how many other modules are 
> prepped for building "uninstalled".)

None of them.

> 6) Please tell me you're not planning on releasing this package with the 
> name "proto". :-)

Oh. Yeah, probably not the best name. 'xproto'? 'xprotocol'?

-- 
keith.packard at intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20100408/f8c94df3/attachment.pgp>