Xorg packaging

Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersmith at sun.com
Wed Apr 4 09:35:36 PDT 2007

Lubos Lunak wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 of April 2007, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>> 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,
>  I meant modularization as a general word, not "x.org modularization". But 
> even then I think some things have split move recently (I don't see libXau or 
> libXdmcp in 6.8).

They were there as far back as X11R6.0 in 1994, they just were normally built
statically and/or symlinked between library source trees, so you didn't notice
if you weren't looking at the code.

>  Anyway, does that mean that you'd be dead set against such changes or you 
> could consider it if there would be good reasons?

I think we'll consider anything if there are good reasons, but for things like
merging libraries, your plan would also have to include how to not break all
the existing software using those libraries (unless they're very rarely used).

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

More information about the xorg mailing list