Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Sven LUTHER wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 06:00:12PM +0100, Michael Schmitz wrote: > > > > > > > So X402 will be in woody sometime soon (perhaps the next > > > > > > > version) ? I was told that no. > > > > > > > > > > > > It should be as soon as m68k will build the package, don't know > > > > > > what the problem is, maybe there are build problems on m68k, or > > > > > > maybe it takes just time. > > > > BTW this topic is outdated; Anthony announced yesterday that X4 is in > > testing now. > > Aha? How come it works now?
X4 is getting a special treatment... > > > Alternatively: would it be possible to hack a quick layer between the > > > XFree86 module loader system and the standard dl* system we already > > > have? I forgot to mention that the modules can actually be built for dl* style. But it's not recommended. > > > XFRee86 mainly wrote their own system to work around bugs in dl* systems > > > on non-Linux OSses, which is something we don't have to care about. > > > > That's not the whole truth. The XFree86 module loader allows for platform > > independence. > > That's the reasoning behind the modular system. But not the whole reasoning > behing the let's-write-our-own-loader system. It isn't? :) It is for all I know, because the OS specific APIs are hidden behind well-defined, OS neutral XFree86 APIs. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper) \ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer CS student, Free Software enthusiast \ XFree86 and DRI project member
