Merged proto package

[Keith Packard]

On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:32:18 -0700, Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith at oracle.com> wrote:

> How would updating different protocols work - if xrandr & dri2 updates were
> both in progress, then we couldn't have a stable version of either until both
> were ready?  Or would we just force protocol development to live on branches
> until it was ready to be frozen and merge to master?

Right. I would expect the protocol package to track the server release
schedule, which should make things reasonably sane. People are
encouraged to publish repositories of proto and server bits before
they're ready to be merged.

> And do we really need everything in the proto module?   xf86rushproto &
> lg3dproto seem particularly pointless to include.   printproto seems like
> it should stay separately available for those who still need to build libXp
> for binary compatibility, but doesn't need to be in the main proto module
> for everyone.

Yeah, I merged everything. It's trivial to reduce the set as it's all
entirely scripted though. We probably shouldn't package anything that
the server doesn't actually use :-)

-- 
keith.packard at intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20100406/d5bc9a44/attachment.pgp>