[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 mailing list