Drew Parsons wrote: > > The name "xprint-xorg" may be slighly misleading since it is not based > > on the plain X.org source; I am using a tree based on the X.org tarballs > > with tons of my own patches to get the little monster working... > > > > What about "xprint-xprintorg" ? :) > > > > OK, we can call it that, then :)
OK... :) [snip] > But once I've got the preliminary package ready, I'll discuss with Branden > and others some more about whether it would be better, as you suggest, to > have xprt-xprintorg conflict with xprt. That would be better for now, having that broken binary around usually ends in the problem that someone tries to use it and then runs into hordes of problems... ;-( ---- BTW: I filed a tracker bug (http://mozdev.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=1632 - "Make release 007 not suck") which tracks all issues until the CVS at xprint.mozdev.org is completely filled... ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED] \__\/\/__/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] /O /==\ O\ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer (;O/ \/ \O;) TEL +49 641 99-41370 FAX +49 641 99-41359 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
