Mitch,
Mitchell Skinner wrote:
FWIW,
I read the cygwin-xfree mailing list archives from time to time, and I
just read the [EMAIL PROTECTED] thread linked from /., and it looks to
me like Harold was being pretty reasonable and was getting a terrible
response.
Thanks. It was so weird to write what I thought was a reasonable reply
only to be essentially shouted at in response. It is reassuring to get
messages from people saying that my posts were in fact reasonable.
I followed the [EMAIL PROTECTED] discussion and the xwin.org and
xouvert.org bits, and at first I wasn't sure if the complainers had a
real beef or if the hubbub was the outcome of some bizarre historical
politics, but it's becoming clearer and clearer that the xfree86 guys
are dropping the ball. Lots of long-time, serious contributors are all
saying the same thing; hopefully all those that have a problem with the
old system can get together and start a single new mainline rather than
splinter into a bunch of different groups.
It looks like people are regrouping. Keith Packard and Jim Gettys are
over at freedesktop.org. They have most of the libs (that aren't
maintained elsewhere) imported and autotooled. I think that is going to
be my long-term destination for our bits... but I am going to work in an
xc/ style repository in the mean time. It will take a few months to
whip the autotooled build into shape, and I don't want to forgo having a
CVS tree during that period.
xouvert is using Arch. I am not really familiar with Arch; I don't even
know if it works on Cygwin. I personally don't think I would have the
time to invest in setting up and maintaining a version of the code in
xouvert... but I would not be opposed to someone else doing this and
tracking my patches. That would be advantageous to us and them.
Speaking of which, since the xouvert guys announced their intention to
fork, I've been wondering which way cygwin-xfree86 would go. What do
cygwin-xfree subscribers think about that?
Oops, I think I told you above :)
Harold
