Re: Minutes from X.Org Architecture Call for 30 August 2004

Paul Anderson wrote:
> I wanted to announce the results of the recent vote conducted
> by the Architecture Board regarding the libXaw/libXp issue.
> Since the issue has already been discussed at length on the
> lists, I won't repeat the entire matter here.  If you would
> like more context on this, please consult the list archives
> for [email protected] and/or [email protected]
> 
> The options that were presented for this vote were:
> 
> (1) Ship the X11R6.7 version of libXaw in X11R6.8 and plan to come up
>     with an architecture that will allow Roland to do what he needs
>     to do in Xaw without requiring a dependence on libXp.
> (2) Split functionality into a separate shared library.  This is
>     not preferable to Roland.
> (3) Bump major version of libXaw
> (4) Ship Roland's completed work on libXaw, noting that it will depend
>     on libXp.
> 
> The votes that I received are as follows:
> 
> Keith Packard:      Option (1):  Ship X11R6.7 version of libXaw in X11R6.8
>                                  and work on an architecture that is more
>                                  supportable.
> Egbert Eich:        Option (3):  Major version number bump
> Leon Shiman:        Option (3):  Major version number bump
> Jim McQuillan:      Option (3):  Major version number bump
> Stuart Kreitman:    Option (3):  Major version number bump
> Alan Coopersmith:   Option (3):  Major version number bump
> Jim Gettys:         No vote received
> 
> This means that option #3 - bump the major version of libXaw -
> received the most votes.

How much time do I have to implement that ?

----

Bye,
Roland

-- 
  __ .  . __
 (o.\ \/ /.o) [email protected]
  \__\/\/__/  MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
  /O /==\ O\  TEL +49 641 7950090
 (;O/ \/ \O;)