[ANNOUNCE] Xorg 6.9 and 7.0 Release Candidate Zero
Alan.Coopersmith at Sun.COM
Tue Aug 9 04:14:09 EST 2005
Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Adam Jackson wrote:
> I don't understand the 0.99.0 versions. Shouldn't these release
> candidates use the versions that the official release will have?
> For example, old xlib's libX11 was 6.2.1 but modular libX11 is 0.99.0; I
> think it should be greater than 6.2.1 for example.
> xlibs' libSM was 6.03 and old libICE was 6.33 and and libXfont was 1.4.1
> and libXau was 0.1.1 and libXext was 6.4.2 (and so on), but release
> candidates are 0.99.0.
> It looks like libXcursor, libXdamage, libXfixes, libXft, and libXpm are
> okay, but the rest are wrong.
For those libraries that had been actively maintained outside the Xorg tree,
their version numbers were preserved. All others were set to 0.99.0.
The xlibs tree was an experiment from which many useful things were learned,
but it was never a canonical source of libX11, libSM, libICE, etc. and its
version numbers have no more claim to correctness than the current 0.99.0 or
any of the other repositories of this code.
-Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
More information about the xorg-modular