On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 04:08:06 +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:37:34 +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
XFree86 BOD wrote:
It has been brought to the attention of the XFree86 Core Team that one
of its members, Keith Packard, has been actively
Keith Whitwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's always a shock to see that what is meant to tease when written comes out
looking more like a direct attack when read back...
Oh, I would agree even if it was considered as sort of an attack,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:37:34 +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
XFree86 BOD wrote:
It has been brought to the attention of the XFree86 Core Team that one
of its members, Keith Packard, has been actively (but privately) seeking
out support for a fork of XFree86 that would be led by himself. He
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 04:08:06PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
From my selfish point of view, an XFree fork will put the DRI tree in a bit
of a difficult position - especially if the new fork gets significant distro
support and we have to somehow track both trees or go through yet another
Philip Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps then, this will provide enough incentive for DRI to move back into
a pure extension module form, rather than its current xfree tree
entanglement.
You don't want to imply that people touch bigger areas as is would be
necessary for DRI development -
