Xorg packaging

Lubos Lunak l.lunak at suse.cz
Wed Apr 4 06:18:13 PDT 2007

On Wednesday 04 of April 2007, Jeremy Kolb wrote:
> Luciano Montanaro wrote:
> > On venerdì 30 marzo 2007, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> >>  What I especially don't get is why there are all those 10k libX*.so
> >> libraries like libXdamage.so that all could be simply included in
> >> libXext. They're so awfully small that this is IMHO modularization taken
> >> a bit too far and I fail to see any advantage in this that'd be worth
> >> all the overhead.
> >
> > Couldn't libxcb help here? If I understand correctly, it is meant as a
> > lower-level replacement for libX11. Does it provide access to X11
> > extensions too? In this case, porting toolkits (Qt, Gtk) to xcb instead
> > of relying on libX11 and co. would be a net win.
> Yes libxcb supports extensions but we also split them up into their own
> libraries.  It makes protocol version bumps easier (like with the
> libraries mentioned above).
> To address the top post this saved my ass when (libXRender?) was updated
> and my server couldn't account for it. I simply rolled back that ONE
> library and everything worked again.  Being able to do that is a big win
> in my book.

 But that was a bug in XRender then, wasn't it? You cannot have the server and 
the client libraries tied together, or you'd have exactly the same problem 
with running remote X.

Lubos Lunak
KDE developer
SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.   e-mail: l.lunak at suse.cz , l.lunak at kde.org

More information about the xorg mailing list