[ANNOUNCE] Xorg 6.9 and 7.0 Release Candidate Zero
Jeremy C. Reed
reed at reedmedia.net
Tue Aug 9 05:52:52 EST 2005
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Keith Packard wrote:
> 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.
Thank you Alan and Keith for the explanation.
I do understand that xlibs was experimental. And I do understand that
using the versions from the libraries as the package versions was wrong.
It should be fine moving to 0.99.0 for most cases.
Looking again, my only noticable concern is libXrandr. pkgsrc provides
Xrandr-1.0.2 and it is a dependency for our xorg-clients, qt3-libs and
gtk2+ packages. But now I see this is okay, because we can create a new
package and call it libXrandr and depend on it instead.
FreeBSD ports specifically warns about libXrandr in its description: "...
please do not use these ports as dependencies until they are updated to
release tarballs ...".
I didn't check other FreeBSD ports or what other vendors or other package
systems are using from xlibs.
Jeremy C. Reed
BSD News, BSD tutorials, BSD links
More information about the xorg-modular