[ANNOUNCE] Xorg 6.9 and 7.0 Release Candidate Zero
keithp at keithp.com
Tue Aug 9 04:42:16 EST 2005
On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 11:14 -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> 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.
Yes, setting the version numbers for the libraries to 1.0 is the right
thing to do. It will also help people understand the distinction between
the library release and the roll-up release as they will have very
different version numbers.
The xlibs versioning scheme was broken.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-modular/attachments/20050808/a506bd5f/attachment.pgp
More information about the xorg-modular