On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 05:22:13PM +0100, Christian T. Steigies wrote: > On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 05:20:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > For reference: m68k is the only released architecture that doesn't have > > X4 uploaded yet. > I know that.
I figured. :) It was the bit after that I thought might be helpful :) > > At a guess, it's probably worthwhile uploading just the X client side of > > X4 for m68k, which should at least mean that if X4 is added to testing > > (woody), the only thing that'll be broken is the X server, rather than > > a thousand otherwise innocent packages... > What is "the client side"? Everything but xserver-*? Should I just remove > them from the changelog? > Just a broken X server means you can not run X on m68k, right? I don't > think thats too desirable. But after all the feedback from the m68k users on > X4.0 was not very high, so maybe X4 in testing is worth mor ethan a broken X > on m68k. Well, the X client libraries and the X server are separate. I'm by no means an X expert, but at worst I'd imagine it'd be possible to just maintain the old m68k xserver-fbdev package as part of xfree86v3. If necessary, I think I can hack around things and arrange to keep xserver-fbdev in woody until someone tells me otherwise, if that's helpful (it's part of the old xfree86-1 package as is the old xlib6g; keeping around one part of it and not another will probably turn out to be a bit awkward, but for the short term, it shouldn't be a problem). You'd have to check with Branden about any technicalities though, I've no idea. And naturally, having a working xserver-xfree86 would be a much simpler and better result in all counts... Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Thanks to all avid pokers out there'' -- linux.conf.au, 17-20 January 2001
pgpWngeIsweMm.pgp
Description: PGP signature