Re: Xquartz version change?
Re: Xquartz version change?
- Subject: Re: Xquartz version change?
- From: Jeremy Huddleston <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:50:54 -0800
On Dec 7, 2007, at 14:17, Martin Costabel wrote:
Xquartz server based on X.org Release 1.3, built on 20071201
Now it seems to give (I have this from third party, I won't try this
myself, not wanting to destroy my Fink installation):
X.Org Xquartz X Server 1.3.0-apple3
I changed that for cross-platform consistency so that the message
printed matches better with the message printed on (for example) linux
and to disambiguate the version number as matching xorg-server and not
"X.org Release".
That is, you removed the words "X.org Release" which had been there
before and which Fink was looking for.
and shouldn't've been
I understand that this corresponds to what you were saying, namely
that you are against the notion of X.org Releases.
As is the X community at large.
But maybe the notion of backward compatibility has some value too?
Backwards compatibility exists in the ABI and the API. We have
finally given Fink and Macports a *real* and *robust* way to determine
the versions of X libraries on the system in /usr/X11/lib/pkgconfig.
I guess Fink will have to advise its users for the near future not
to install your latest Xquartz offerings.
I don't see why fink binaries won't work right. They should work fine
since we symlink /usr/X11R6 to /usr/X11... the problem is in compiling
them, right? So compile them on Tiger for now and distribute them as
they'll work on Leopard... then as the packages get updated to use pkg-
config instead of grep-hacks, things should start to work right on
Leopard.
Note: I don't use Fink, so I don't have a fine understanding of their
build process.
--Jeremy
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
X11-users mailing list (email@hidden)
This email sent to email@hidden