Xorg packaging

Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersmith at sun.com
Wed Apr 4 07:34:54 PDT 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.

That was done in the monolith too, it's not a feature of modularization,
and is done in large part to allow their API/ABI to evolve and change if
needed without breaking that of other extensions.   If libXft had been
part of libXext, we'd be carrying both the Xft1 and Xft2 function sets
around in libXext still, leading to more unnecessary bloat.

(Also, other than composite managers and screenscrapers like VNC, who
  else links with libXdamage?)

	-Alan Coopersmith-           alan.coopersmith at sun.com
	 Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering

More information about the xorg mailing list