xc/programs considered harmful

[Daniel Stone]

On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 17:34 +0100, Roland Mainz wrote:
> Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Does anyone realistically care about[0] the following directories:
> > xc/programs/xterm
> 
> xterm is being used and should stay exactly at that place. Even when the
> only reason is to avoid screwing-up the CVSblame.

Can we please move it to extras/, to reflect the fact that pretty much
all we do is import from its upstream, Thomas Dickey?

> > xc/programs/xlogo
> 
> Sure, a xlogo is demo application but sometimes being used by twm users
> do have a background. And I doubt anyone will approve the removal of all
> the demo applications just because they are not being actively being
> maintained. If you really think these applications should be removed
> please file a message to the Xorg arch list - they are the people which
> approve new applications in the tree and therefore I assume a consense
> there is needed to remove applications, too.

I would be happy to formally propose the move of these to the modular
tree.

> > xc/programs/xclock
> > xc/programs/xeyes
> 
> Both are being used by twm users, too (you don't want to rip-off twm,
> too - right ? =:) ...

No, absolutely not.  But I don't see the need for these small client
applications in the monolithic tree, any more than we need a web browser
in xc/programs.

> > xc/programs/xbiff
> > xc/programs/xcalc
> > xc/programs/xedit
> 
> xedit is actively being used, too.

So let's move it to the modular tree.

> > xc/programs/xmessage
> > xc/programs/xmh
> > xc/programs/xman
> 
> xman is actively being used, too.

So let's move it to the modular tree.

> > xc/programs/xrx
> 
> xrx&co. is part of the X/Broadway technology which is actively being
> used in intranets (and it's even being maintained - if you take a look
> into trunk you'll see a bunch of fixes for it...) ...

So let's move it to a tree of its own.

> > xc/programs/xvidtune
> > 
> > If no-one objects (read: steps in and starts maintaining the relevant
> > program) to the removal of any of these, I would like to kick them from
> > the tree ASAP
> 
> Daniel: Why is that neccesary ? The only "gain" here (beyond to push
> your pet project "modular tree") is to cause trouble for other people,
> nothing else.

No, it is not to cause problems for anyone.  These are all small (and
most of them rather infrequently-used and/or infrequently-maintained)
client applications, and I believe these are absolutely out of the scope
of X.Org -- just as we should not be including a web browser.

It is not to cause trouble to anyone.  If we are to move to the modular
tree, we can't just expect it to sort of happen the week before the
release or something.  The work needs to start (no -- we have working
client-side libraries and a server; let's say 'continue') now.  If you
wish to keep the monolithic structure and not transition to a modular
tree, please let me know and we can have that debate.  But I think there
is universal consensus on where we need to go (modular), and how to get
there (gradually transition applications out of the monolithic tree).

Users of these applications would not suffer any magical quality drop or
such.

> > They have no place in the tree as we move towards a
> > monolithic structure, and at least one (xterm) has a very active
> > upstream.  If xterm remains in the monolithic tree, it should be moved
> > to extras/,
> 
> It may be better think about doing the xterm development in the Xorg
> CVS.

Please, no.