[Xquartz-dev] X11 2.1.0
bbyer at apple.com
Sun Dec 2 06:38:17 PST 2007
On Dec 1, 2007, at 11:55 PM, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2007, at 22:14, John Davidorff Pell wrote:
>> On 1 Dec 2007, at 19:41, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
>>>> 3. We should probably refer to this package as "X11" (as opposed
>>>> to X11User), because it includes parts of what would
>>>> traditionally go into the SDK package (the man pages for
>>>> functions, and the header files). That's perfectly fine; I see
>>>> no reason to bother with splitting it into two packages.
>>> Ok, I just noticed that the package was called X11User.pkg still
>>> in the Leopard install, so I wanted to keep that the same... I'll
>>> change it.
>> I don't think this is a good idea. The idea here is to overlay the
>> system X11User.pkg, not install another separate component. This
>> package should include only what would go into X11User.pkg, not the
> AFAICT, with Leopard, binaries are installed from
> com.apple.pkg.X11User (main install) and headers are from
> com.apple.pkg.X11SDKLeo (XCode 3).
> I *really* don't want to maintain two separate packages, and I don't
> feel right calling our package com.apple.*. It's a community
> supported overlay of Apple's official releases, so I'm just going to
> use org.x.X11 and combine both X11User and X11SDK updates. Does
> anyone have any objections to that or know of any negative
> consequences to doing that?_
If and when we manage to push out a package of the X11 bits from Tiger
for Leopard (a prototype of which is at x11-tiger.dmg),
then it's just going to be as you've done above -- merged the packages.
There are probably libraries that are bigger than the total filesize
of the "X11SDK" bits.
CoreOS / BSD Technology Group, XDarwin maintainer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Xquartz-dev