xorg development questions and ideas

[Chad 'v3rt1g0' Kittel]

On 8/28/06, Terry Chan <tpchan at comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 03:42:25PM +0200, Samuel Verstraete wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:36:33 +0200
> > Zbigniew Luszpinski <zbiggy at o2.pl> wrote:
> >
> > <<snip>>
> > >
> > > Replacing XOrg by XOrg7 is very bad idea in my opinion. There is a
> > > lot of work put in XOrg7(.1) by lunar devs and module works. But
> > > solving all the issues in this decentralised, huge project will take
> > > some time (mostly 'outside' dependencies compability). Instead I
> > > think it would be good to replace XOrg with XOrg-test. The XOrg is a
> > > little bit outdated at 6.8.2 version where XOrg-test is at more
> > > modern 6.9.0 one. I use XOrg-test almost since beginning and did not
> > > find any issues except some strange behaviour with symlinks
> > > generation at build script which causes sometimes loop. But this
> > > looks the same in both modules.
> >
> > AFAIK 6.9.0 is never released as a stable branch of the XOrg tree so
> > i'd vote against moving XOrg-test to Xorg... lets just delete XOrg-test
> > as the 6.9.0 tree is depreciated anyway.
> >
> > <<snip>>
> > <<double-snip>>
>
> Wrong. See http://xorg.freedesktop.org/wiki/XorgReleases
>
> XOrg-6.9.0 was released 2005-12-21.  Do NOT delete XOrg-test. I use XOrg-test
> and it works just fine.  I actually agree with Zbiggy and we should replace
> XOrg in moonbase with the contents of XOrg-test.
>

I agree with tchan here,

6.9.0 is just as valid as 7.0 is, as they are the same code only
packaged differently AFAIK, meaning we should not delete 6.9.0 yet.  I
also think that the XOrg module should be bumped to 6.9.0 and
XOrg-test should probably be deleted from the moonbase (including the
%X alias)

-- 
 _
(\o/) Chad 'v3rt1g0' Kittel <v3rt1g0 at lunar-linux.org>
 /_\  Beaver Dam, WI (USA)  [4 8 15 16 23 42]
"...staring up at heaven from the bottom of a glass" - Savatage