On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 09:34:12PM -0700, John Gilmore wrote:
> The Debian X FAQ is conspicuously silent about the whole X licensing
> issue.
This is due more to inertia on my part than anything else.
> It does mention X.Org but its commentary dates from 1999,
> saying that X.Org supervised the X
The Debian X FAQ is conspicuously silent about the whole X licensing
issue. It does mention X.Org but its commentary dates from 1999,
saying that X.Org supervised the X11R6.5.1 release. The FAQ also
says the XFree86 Project "release their X servers under licensing
terms identical to that of the f
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 02:31:40PM +0200, Patric Ljung wrote:
> I've downloaded and compiled X11R6.7 (and also XFree86 4.4.0).
> Then I installed Xorg (make install install.man). But, that
> of course results in problems with the Debian packages depending
> on X (xbase-common, x
Hi,
I've downloaded and compiled X11R6.7 (and also XFree86 4.4.0).
Then I installed Xorg (make install install.man). But, that
of course results in problems with the Debian packages depending
on X (xbase-common, xbase-clients, etc).
Either I make a proper Debian package of X or setup a
dular
> > structure without making any code changes. If so, then having Debian
> > transition to the modular version of X11R6.7 might make more sense than
> > moving to the monolithic version of 6.7 only to then repackage with the
> > modular bits a short time later.
> >
then having Debian
> transition to the modular version of X11R6.7 might make more sense than
> moving to the monolithic version of 6.7 only to then repackage with the
> modular bits a short time later.
>
> The goal here is to leave the code completely unchanged and only modify
> the bu
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 10:44:46PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 03:16:03PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I think it might be easier to transition our developers and users if we
> > packaged the X.Org monolithic tree, adding stuff from modular tree in
> > parallel as it
On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 03:16:03PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I think it might be easier to transition our developers and users if we
> packaged the X.Org monolithic tree, adding stuff from modular tree in
> parallel as it becomes available.
I suppose that the current packaging would transit
;
> That depends to some degree on whether I manage to convince the X.org
> developers to take the time right now to transition the tree to a modular
> structure without making any code changes.
Yes, indeedy.
> If so, then having Debian
> transition to the modular version of X11
t; What happens after XFree86 4.3? I understand that you don't
> > > like the license of version 4.4. Is X11R6.7 a better choice?
> >
> > None of us have plans to package the X.Org monolithic tree:
>
> That's not entirely true; I've thought about it.
(
ge to convince the X.org
developers to take the time right now to transition the tree to a modular
structure without making any code changes. If so, then having Debian
transition to the modular version of X11R6.7 might make more sense than
moving to the monolithic version of 6.7 only to then
after XFree86 4.3? I understand that you don't
> > like the license of version 4.4. Is X11R6.7 a better choice?
>
> None of us have plans to package the X.Org monolithic tree:
That's not entirely true; I've thought about it.
> we plan to migrate to the modular tree
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 08:42:50AM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Hopefully this is no oh-no-not-again question:
>
> What happens after XFree86 4.3? I understand that you don't
> like the license of version 4.4. Is X11R6.7 a better choice?
None of us have plans to package the
Hi folks,
Hopefully this is no oh-no-not-again question:
What happens after XFree86 4.3? I understand that you don't
like the license of version 4.4. Is X11R6.7 a better choice?
Regards
Harri
14 matches
Mail list logo
