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;)