Xorg packaging

Jeremy Kolb jkolb at brandeis.edu
Wed Apr 4 05:16:25 PDT 2007

Luciano Montanaro wrote:
> On venerdì 30 marzo 2007, Lubos Lunak wrote:
>>  What I especially don't get is why there are all those 10k libX*.so
>> libraries like libXdamage.so that all could be simply included in
>> libXext. They're so awfully small that this is IMHO modularization taken
>> a bit too far and I fail to see any advantage in this that'd be worth all
>> the overhead.
> Couldn't libxcb help here? If I understand correctly, it is meant as a 
> lower-level replacement for libX11. Does it provide access to X11 
> extensions too? In this case, porting toolkits (Qt, Gtk) to xcb instead of 
> relying on libX11 and co. would be a net win.
> Luciano

Yes libxcb supports extensions but we also split them up into their own
libraries.  It makes protocol version bumps easier (like with the
libraries mentioned above).

To address the top post this saved my ass when (libXRender?) was updated
and my server couldn't account for it. I simply rolled back that ONE
library and everything worked again.  Being able to do that is a big win
in my book.


More information about the xorg mailing list