On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 04:22:17PM +0200, Julien Danjou wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21 2011, Drew Parsons wrote: > > cc: xcb maintainers: should you keep libxcb-xprint0 ? Do we need to talk > > about this? libxcb-xprint0 has no relation (in a packaging sense) to > > xprint. > > I see no harm providing it. It exists, so we can just let it be. Nothing > depends on it I guess, and nothing should ever depends on it, but I > don't see any good reason not to build it either. > > If you really want to hide that Xprint ever existed, maybe that'd be a > reason to stop building that package, otherwise, I don't see really any. > :)
Speaking as both a Debian user and an XCB developer: - I think we'll leave xprint.xml in xcb-proto forever, because it's protocol documentation that may be useful to somebody. - In libxcb master, I'd be happy to change configure.ac to default to not building xprint. I'd personally continue building it because I build all known extensions, just to check for build regressions, but there's no reason everybody else needs to. - For Debian, while I can't argue with your point, Julien, that "I don't see any good reason not to build it," I also don't see any good reason *to* build it, and I have a lot of sympathy with wanting to "hide that Xprint ever existed." :-) Jamey
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature