Please don't CC me on list mails.
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 11:54:09AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > I was hoping to avoid this, but developing consensus on -policy seems to be
> > that I should do this. Sigh.
> >
> >> [1] Verified, that is lib/Xt/Initialize.c, XtScreenDatabase()
> >
> >
Please don't CC me on list mails.
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 11:54:09AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > I was hoping to avoid this, but developing consensus on -policy seems to be
> > that I should do this. Sigh.
> >
> >> [1] Verified, that is lib/Xt/Initialize.c, XtScreenDatabase()
> >
> >
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> Indeed, I believe this is an Xrm issue, not necessarily a Xt one.
Well the file I referenced is the only .c or .h file in all of X that
contains the string '"app-defaults"'.
> Hacking X to do this seems bad. Why did upstream not have a similar redundant
> search path
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Can't you play a trick with XUSERFILESEARCHPATH internally? That might
> work (I'm assuming it has some built-in default value here).
Actually, the search path's value comes from the Imakefile, where is is
set via some imake function like this:
SEARCHPATHDEFAULT
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> Indeed, I believe this is an Xrm issue, not necessarily a Xt one.
Well the file I referenced is the only .c or .h file in all of X that
contains the string '"app-defaults"'.
> Hacking X to do this seems bad. Why did upstream not have a similar redundant
> search pat
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Can't you play a trick with XUSERFILESEARCHPATH internally? That might
> work (I'm assuming it has some built-in default value here).
Actually, the search path's value comes from the Imakefile, where is is
set via some imake function like this:
SEARCHPATHDEFAULT
> I was hoping to avoid this, but developing consensus on -policy seems to be
> that I should do this. Sigh.
>
>> [1] Verified, that is lib/Xt/Initialize.c, XtScreenDatabase()
>
> I'm not sure it's not the only one. It's not just Xt-using apps that read
> app-defaults, IIRC. I think the Xrm* f
Previously Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 04:15:59AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > So, why not hack X[2]? Make the library look in /etc/X11/app-defaults, then
> > in the old location. Make policy that states that packages depending on the
> > X 4 version of that library should use
> I was hoping to avoid this, but developing consensus on -policy seems to be
> that I should do this. Sigh.
>
>> [1] Verified, that is lib/Xt/Initialize.c, XtScreenDatabase()
>
> I'm not sure it's not the only one. It's not just Xt-using apps that read
> app-defaults, IIRC. I think the Xrm*
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 02:47:25PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> I'm two minds about this. Yes, the architecture of the new X server
> is better. What I'm getting out of it is not. I have to sit down,
> reread docs, and figure out why, but the 16 bpp mode suffers from
> severe ditherin
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 01:32:32PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> Are source packages available?
I'm probably going to regret posting this URL, especially since I'll have
v3 -- which I *was* going to make public -- ready today, but...
http://deadbeast.net/~branden/DANGER_WILL_ROBINSON/
Ev
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:59:11AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> Ok, I am not an xfree86 developer, I have to ask the m68k question. AFAIK
> the xfree drivers for m68k are by far not ready, or only a handful yet. With
> this we (m68k) could install xfree4.0 libraries and run the 3.3.6 serve
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 04:15:59AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Hmm. What bogus information will dpkg have?
[...]
> I can only identify two problems:
>
> * dpkg -S /etc/X11/app-defaults/foo will fail.
That's what I was thinking of.
> * If some other package also contains an app-defaults file named
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:27:55AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> Ok, about the X server, but will we maintain two sets of libraries also, or go
> with the 4.0.1 ones ?
Just the 4.0.1 ones.
> Also how did you solve the XF86Config conflict ? since 4.x a,d 3.x XF86Config
> files are not compatible.
T
Previously Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 04:15:59AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > So, why not hack X[2]? Make the library look in /etc/X11/app-defaults, then
> > in the old location. Make policy that states that packages depending on the
> > X 4 version of that library should use
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 02:47:25PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> I'm two minds about this. Yes, the architecture of the new X server
> is better. What I'm getting out of it is not. I have to sit down,
> reread docs, and figure out why, but the 16 bpp mode suffers from
> severe ditheri
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 01:32:32PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> Are source packages available?
I'm probably going to regret posting this URL, especially since I'll have
v3 -- which I *was* going to make public -- ready today, but...
http://deadbeast.net/~branden/DANGER_WILL_ROBINSON/
E
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:59:11AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> Ok, I am not an xfree86 developer, I have to ask the m68k question. AFAIK
> the xfree drivers for m68k are by far not ready, or only a handful yet. With
> this we (m68k) could install xfree4.0 libraries and run the 3.3.6 serv
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 04:15:59AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Hmm. What bogus information will dpkg have?
[...]
> I can only identify two problems:
>
> * dpkg -S /etc/X11/app-defaults/foo will fail.
That's what I was thinking of.
> * If some other package also contains an app-defaults file named
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:27:55AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> Ok, about the X server, but will we maintain two sets of libraries also, or go
> with the 4.0.1 ones ?
Just the 4.0.1 ones.
> Also how did you solve the XF86Config conflict ? since 4.x a,d 3.x XF86Config
> files are not compatible.
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It has to do with app-defaults files. Current Debian policy says
> these can't be conffiles, so they go in
> /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults.
> Well, upstream has changed things, and it putting them in
> /etc/X11/app-defaults. Rather than buck this
>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[ regarding the status of the new Xserver ]
> I expect it to be widely used, especially by people with recent hardware.
I'm two minds about this. Yes, the architecture of the new X server
is better. What I'm getting out of it is not. I have
[ Talking about /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults directory, which is
planned to be a symlink to /etc/X11/app-defaults. ]
> *HOWEVER*, dpkg's databases will contain bogus information about the
> locations of files installed to that directory. So it is imperative that
> these packages have new vers
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 12:57:10PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> I remember running XF4 on top of amifb way back in the 3.9.16 days, i suppose
> this will work nicely on m68k also, if you can build the kernel.
amifb is not the only fb available for m68k. It might work for me, but I can
not see it, si
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It has to do with app-defaults files. Current Debian policy says
> these can't be conffiles, so they go in
> /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults.
> Well, upstream has changed things, and it putting them in
> /etc/X11/app-defaults. Rather than buck thi
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:59:11AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 03:00:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 07:59:03AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > > I think what you propose is a good solution. I suppose 4.0.1 will be
> > > woody's
> > >
>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[ regarding the status of the new Xserver ]
> I expect it to be widely used, especially by people with recent hardware.
I'm two minds about this. Yes, the architecture of the new X server
is better. What I'm getting out of it is not. I hav
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 03:00:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 07:59:03AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > I think what you propose is a good solution. I suppose 4.0.1 will be woody's
> > primary X server, will it not ?
>
> I expect it to be widely used, especially by peo
[ Talking about /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults directory, which is
planned to be a symlink to /etc/X11/app-defaults. ]
> *HOWEVER*, dpkg's databases will contain bogus information about the
> locations of files installed to that directory. So it is imperative that
> these packages have new ver
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 12:57:10PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> I remember running XF4 on top of amifb way back in the 3.9.16 days, i suppose
> this will work nicely on m68k also, if you can build the kernel.
amifb is not the only fb available for m68k. It might work for me, but I can
not see it, s
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:59:11AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 03:00:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 07:59:03AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > > I think what you propose is a good solution. I suppose 4.0.1 will be woody's
> > > prima
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 03:00:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 07:59:03AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > I think what you propose is a good solution. I suppose 4.0.1 will be woody's
> > primary X server, will it not ?
>
> I expect it to be widely used, especially by pe
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 03:00:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 07:59:03AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > I think what you propose is a good solution. I suppose 4.0.1 will be woody's
> > primary X server, will it not ?
>
> I expect it to be widely used, especially by peo
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 07:59:03AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> I think what you propose is a good solution. I suppose 4.0.1 will be woody's
> primary X server, will it not ?
I expect it to be widely used, especially by people with recent hardware.
Some of the 3.x series X servers will continue to
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 03:00:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 07:59:03AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > I think what you propose is a good solution. I suppose 4.0.1 will be woody's
> > primary X server, will it not ?
>
> I expect it to be widely used, especially by pe
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 07:59:03AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> I think what you propose is a good solution. I suppose 4.0.1 will be woody's
> primary X server, will it not ?
I expect it to be widely used, especially by people with recent hardware.
Some of the 3.x series X servers will continue t
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 12:21:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Hi folks.
>
> As some of you know, highly unstable and experimental 4.0.1 .debs were
> produced on Friday and made available to a few people for testing. These
> things were way broken, but not as badly as I feared. I got some v
Hi folks.
As some of you know, highly unstable and experimental 4.0.1 .debs were
produced on Friday and made available to a few people for testing. These
things were way broken, but not as badly as I feared. I got some valuable
feedback, made some fixes, and am preparing for a real Phase 1 relea
38 matches
Mail list logo
