Subject: Re: Xorg 6.9/7.0
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Juan RP <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/01/2006 19:53:43
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 19:51:16 +0100
"Julio M. Merino Vidal" <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 1/1/06, Hubert Feyrer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, 1 Jan 2006, Vincent wrote:
> > > Just a thing: is the package going to be 6.9 or 7.0? I mean,
> > > modular or not?
> > Dumb question: what does "modular" in that context mean?
> > (I haven't followed latest X development, and the rumour that
> > everything is now autoconf instead of imake doesn't sound like a
> > major improvement to me...)
> "modular" as in that every library or program that conforms X.Org
> is now in its own distfile, all autoconf-ized (a la GNOME). (I don't
> know the granularity of the packages, though.)
> I think we'll eventually have to switch. And IMHO, the resulting
> packages will be better than the current situation of patches for
> imake files and inconsistent installations between pkgsrc-supported
Yes, eventually. ATM I'm updating the packages to 6.9.0 (still uses
To switch to the modular X.org we'd have to create all missing packages.