Re: Xorg version number change

Roland Mainz <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.freedesktop.release-wranglers,gmane.comp.freedesktop.xorg
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 04:52:22PM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> > > > What 'the world' means is debatable, especially as many
> > > > systems have a lot of paths with 'X11R6' encoded in them.
> > >
> > > Just because it's there and common practice, doesn't make it right. :)
> >
> > Yep. Long ago it was X11R5, before that X11R4. And switching the default
> > dir to /usr/X11R7/ won't hurt neither less or more
> > (backwards-compatibility can be guranteed via softlink from /usr/X11R6
> > --> /usr/X11R7/ ...) ... :)
> 
> So we soft-link all the directories to each other.  That's so cool.
> Very compelling argument for having them.

The link /usr/X11/ should link to the current version being in use. That
allows an admin to have more than one tree and switch betweenm active
version just via changing the soft link.

> > BTW: Since a while Solaris has a link /usr/X/ which points to the
> > currently installed version of X11... maybe the same should be done for
> > the Xorg tree and then all version-independent paths should go through
> > /usr/X/ (or /usr/X11/) instead of /usr/X11R(6|7)/ ...
> 
> Oh man, no.  Why?

Ask the original designers of the code... :)

> For starters, I don't think this tree should even exist.  But if we take
> it for granted that it must exist for some strange reason, why must we
> include the version number in it?
> 
> GTK isn't installed to /usr/gtk+-2.4.
> GNOME isn't installed to /usr/gnome2.8.

... and GTK and Gnome are also known for other "good" design choices...
=:-)
Really... both _should_ live in /usr/gnome/ like all good Unix citizen.

> KDE isn't installed to /usr/kde3.3.

Happily lives under /opt/kde/ in SuSE and most other Linux versions (or
/usr/kde/ on Solaris) ...

> xterm isn't installed to /usr/xterm-0.94.

BAD example as "xterm" is part of the X11 suite.

> Apache isn't installed to /usr/apache-1.3.29.

It's /usr/apache/ here (Solaris) ...

> To take the example of a proprietary UNIX suite par excellence; last
> time I checked, iPlanet installed to /usr/netscape, not
> /usr/netscape-iplanet-x.x.x.  So, even in the most abhorrent case of
> there being a separate subdirectory under /usr (why? why? why?), there
> is no way known the version number should be playing a part.
> 
> I don't think the separate directory under /usr should exist per
> default,

So you want to stick everything into /usr/include/, /usr/lib/ etc.?
Windows has such a "flat" filesystem layout where every application
behaves like that. And from Windows also comes the term "DLL h*ll".
Think about it...

> but if it does, there is absolutely no reason to include the
> version number.  I think it's just dumb.  Really, really dumb.

It's not always dumb, sometimes it makes much sense (see the comment
with the multiple versions above...).

----

Bye,
Roland

-- 
  __ .  . __
 (o.\ \/ /.o) [email protected]
  \__\/\/__/  MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
  /O /==\ O\  TEL +49 641 7950090
 (;O/ \/ \O;)
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.