On 1/9/06, Egbert Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Julien Lafon writes:
> > On 1/5/06, Adam Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > We've got five DDXes that are complex enough to need or want auxiliary
> tools
> > > or config bits. Right now we have:
> > >
> > > xorg/Xprint
> > > xorg/XpConfig
> > > xorg/hw/xfree86
> > > xorg/hw/xfree86/utils
> > > xorg/hw/dmx
> > > xorg/hw/dmx/config
> > > xorg/hw/darwin
> > > xorg/hw/darwin/utils
> > > xorg/hw/xwin
> > > xorg/hw/xwin/xlaunch
> > >
> > > For parallelism I'd rather see the Xprint DDX moved under hw and its
> config
> > > bits under that:
> > >
> > > xorg/hw/Xprint
> > > xorg/hw/Xprint/XpConfig
> > > xorg/hw/xfree86
> > > xorg/hw/xfree86/utils
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Does anyone have a compelling case against this?
> >
> > See below.
> >
> > > If not I'll probably shuffle
> > > this around sometime this weekend.
> >
> > It does not sound not logical to me - Xprint DDX is no physical
> > hardware so why should it be tagged as such?
>
> Neither is vfb or nest.
> 'hw' is really the wrong name here. It's historical.
> Better would be 'ddx'.
I do not want the Xprint files moved except hw/ gets renamed to ddx/
first (I wish this hw/ --> ddx/ rename would have been done during
monolithic-->modular transition as the issue seems to be known since
some time... :-().
--
_ Felix Schulte
_|_|_ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(0 0)
ooO--(_)--Ooo
_______________________________________________
Xprint mailing list
[email protected]
http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/xprint
