RFC: What to do with the stale/buggy Xft/Xrender in the tree.

[Mike A. Harris]

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:

>Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 10:52:28 -0500
>From: Kaleb S. KEITHLEY <kaleb@shiman.com>
>To: release-wranglers@freedesktop.org
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>List-Id: People working on X software releases
>    <release-wranglers.freedesktop.org>
>Subject: Re: RFC: What to do with the stale/buggy Xft/Xrender in the tree.
>
>
>
>Keith Packard wrote:
>> Around 16 o'clock on Mar 1, "Kaleb S. KEITHLEY" wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>It shouldn't be hard to fix imake, or more accurately, lnxLib.rules, to 
>>>deal with teeny library revs. That's probably useful in the general 
>>>sense. Although it'll break when some genius decides he needs four 
>>>levels of versions on a library.
>> 
>> 
>> "shouldn't be hard" == "not in this release timeframe"...
>
>No. The sed command that turns, e.g., libXrender.so.1.2 or 
>libXrender.so.1.2.3 into libXrender.so.1 for the soname in the library 
>and the extra symlink is a trivial change in four places in lnxLib.rules.
>
>{bsd,bsdi,darwin}Lib.rules are the only other systems that have this 
>silliness.

Kaleb, can you make the necessary changes to make this happen 
right away?  Time is of the essence to get the tree ready to go, 
so the sooner things like this get done, the more we can put 
behind us.  You seem to know the Imake bits in this area better 
than others, so it would seem to be the fastest way to get the 
fixes in place for you to commit them if you have the time to 
work on it.

Alternatively if nobody has the time to work on this immediately, 
who understands what the specific fixes would be, then we should 
go with the proposed solution #6 from my previous email.

Please let me know if you decide to work on the fix.

TIA


-- 
Mike A. Harris     ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat