On Thursday 25 February 2010, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > * udev: The previous patch set wasn't really good indeed. [...] > (I'm not sure we should name it udev-gtk-udeb since > there's nothing gtk-related in there, it'd rather be X11-related, > but frankly, I don't care. :))
I chose -gtk as it will be used with the gtk frontend and is consistent with e.g. rootskel-gtk. But other names are certainly possible and the final name will need to be agreed with Marco. > * gtk+2.0: Julien's patch against its configure.in did the trick and > a few X libraries got dropped: libxcomposite1, libxdamage1, > libxfixes3, libxrandr2. That's excellent! > That means fewer udebs to add (although libxfixes3 is still pulled by > libxcursor1), which is what we tried to achieve. If that's the only thing that pulls it in, would it be an option to compile it statically? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201002261142.16937.elen...@planet.nl
