Merged repo for protocol headers? Why are they split?

[Dylan Baker]

I've been doing what I need for mesa on platforms that lack proper package/port
management (aka, windows and macos). AFAIK it should be completely possible to
merge all the protos into a single xorg-proto (or whatever color you like your
bikeshed), but no one's stepped up to take on that project.

There are a couple of questions I have about a merged proto repo, namely some of
the protos still have options for handling very old OSes (some or all of which
are not in common use anymore) and some of the protos themselves are not in
common use anymore. Do we want to add the obsolete protos and do we want to drop
options for some of the more archaic OSes?

Dylan

Quoting Daniel Martin (2017-11-21 01:59:42)
> Hi,
> 
> I've ever wondered why are the proto headers split up into distinct
> repos? (It takes "ages" to just copy (install) a few files with
> autotools.)
> 
> Dylan started to add meson support, but doing this for all protos
> sounds like a lot of copy'n'paste to do, lots of patches . Wouldn't it
> make more sense in general to merge all proto repos into one (meson
> only) and have options if you don't want a specific proto to be
> installed as we do with xcb?
> 
> Cheers,
>     Daniel
> 
> PS: A quick search revealed that a merge is possible even with keeping
> the history.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <https://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20171121/90d52f5e/attachment.sig>