Xorg packaging

[Lubos Lunak]

On Wednesday 04 of April 2007, Jeremy Kolb wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.

 But that was a bug in XRender then, wasn't it? You cannot have the server and 
the client libraries tied together, or you'd have exactly the same problem 
with running remote X.

-- 
Lubos Lunak
KDE developer
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.   e-mail: l.lunak at suse.cz , l.lunak at kde.org