Merged proto package

[Keith Packard]

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 14:24:29 -0400, Gaetan Nadon <memsize at videotron.ca> wrote:

> I like that. I am not sure, but are the old *.pc realy needed? It adds a
> little bit to existing complexity:

Just for compatibility with existing users.

> For backward compatibility, if config file ask for old package, then old
> package should be installed.

Nope. The new package provides the files, we just need to let old users
know they're present.

> As for xproto itself, we need to make sure it won't suffer from previous
> versions being installed. Otherwise, it may be better to use a new name
> all together. Again, not sure, consider these statements as test
> cases.

Version numbers in xproto will suffice to distinguish here.

> On another note, should the xproto.pc be installed in "share" ($datadir)
> rather than "lib" ($libdir) directory? All protos are architecture
> independent.

Perhaps, except that we wouldn't overwrite an existing xproto.pc
file. I'd rather preserve compatibility across this transition and
consider a possible move in the future.

-- 
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/20100408/82365d74/attachment.pgp>