At least at a quick glance, I think these could be fairly
straightforward to port to XCB, though whether it's worth the effort
for all of them is debatable:
backlight, ico, xcmsdb, xcompmgr, xdriinfo, xhost, xinit, xkill,
I took a stab at porting xhost to xcb, but it looks like some
In message 4c406a89.7080...@oracle.com you wrote:
Given what I learned on the xwininfo port I took a quick pass across
the rest of the X.Org app/* modules to see what it would take to port
each to xcb.
Thanks huge. That looks like it was a lot of work.
These depend on libXft, and I'm not
Vincent Torri wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
At least at a quick glance, I think these could be fairly straightforward
to port to XCB, though whether it's worth the effort for all of them is
debatable:
backlight, ico, xcmsdb, xcompmgr, xdriinfo, xhost, xinit, xkill,
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 05:32:32PM +0300, Tiago Vignatti wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 04:24:04PM +0200, ext Vincent Torri wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Given what I learned on the xwininfo port I took a quick pass across
the rest of the X.Org app/* modules to see
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:39:16 -0700
From: Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com
I suppose I left out my thinking about why it's useful to port the
X.Org apps to xcb. Clearly the mainstream distros are going to have
to ship libX11 until approximately the end of time_t - there's
Hello,
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:39:16 -0700, Alan Coopersmith
alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote:
But every app we port ourselves gives us more insight into what is needed
to port apps, and figure out how to make it easier for
authors/maintainers
of the much more complicated apps out there in
On Fri, Jul 16 2010, Owain Ainsworth wrote:
There is a port of libXft to xcb. I have been meaning to try and get it
commited to git for a while now (It is not my work). The only link I can
find is:
http://gtk-xcb.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/gtk-xcb/libXft/
Last I looked (a while ago) it
Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
Most of the much more complicated apps use X through some kind of UI
toolkit framework. So I would guess that porting one of those frameworks is
what's most needed to port apps.
Absolutely - one of the clear lessons I learned with the xwininfo port was
that our
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:58:21 +0100, Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org wrote:
Mm, there's a lot in xcompmgr that makes it a great example of how not
to design a compositing manager. Unless you don't care in the least
about efficiency or aesthetics (which is sort of the point of a
compmgr).
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 05:13:34PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:39:16 -0700
From: Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com
I suppose I left out my thinking about why it's useful to port the
X.Org apps to xcb. Clearly the mainstream distros are going to have
Mark Kettenis wrote:
From: Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com
But every app we port ourselves gives us more insight into what is
needed to port apps, and figure out how to make it easier for
authors/maintainers of the much more complicated apps out there in
the rest of the world.
Barton C Massey wrote:
In message 4c406a89.7080...@oracle.com you wrote:
lbxproxy - calls xtrans directly since it's a X11 proxy, plus, it's
LBX, so it's just special anyway. (Also, since Xorg no
longer supports LBX, not widely used anymore.)
Why do we even still
12 matches
Mail list logo
