[BLFS Trac] #2518: Xorg-7.2 libXfont

DJ Lucas dj at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed Apr 30 18:01:39 PDT 2008


Randy McMurchy wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote these words on 04/30/08 01:11 CST:
>   
>> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>     
>>> Hopefully, everything will be simply commented out. I'd like to
>>> leave any unused, but still in the book, text to remain there until
>>> we cut this release. That way the source is a bit more preserved,
>>> even though it may never be needed.
>>>
>>> So there's no confusion, what I'm saying is that if there is text that
>>> is going to be removed, let's try to comment it out instead of deleting
>>> it.
>>>   
>>>       
>> Ugh..I already deleted all of the text, but I am not removing any 
>> files.
>>     
>
> I did not see those commits, I suppose you're speaking of changes
> you've done in your local sandbox. Well, if the text has to go, then
> it has to go. I did however, think we were trying to preserve as
> much as possible until after the branch was cut, that way the text
> is always available without having to pull a dated SVN copy.
>
>
>   
>>  I don't see the harm in that.  If we really need them, we can do 
>> a dated pull, but I'll wait for your approval before I do the second 
>> commit.
>>     
>
> As I mentioned, I didn't see the first commit. As I've been
> fairly busy with other stuff, perhaps I just don't recall what
> you're speaking of.
>
>
>   
>>  If you really want it commented out, I'll go back and redo it 
>> on Friday.
>>     
>
> Don't go to any extra trouble...
>
>
>   
>> Exactly.  The book is OK as it is now, [snip] I don't believe 
>> that the libXfont change should go now, [snip]...might as well
>> knock out a couple of other tickets
>> while I was at it. 
>>
>> I'm good to leave it as is.  I'll go back and put in 
>> libXfont-1.2.8...actually, no, [snip] It's fine as is.
>>
>> I'm going to get these last two changes in quick [snip]
>>     
>
> I've got to be honest, what you've said above has got me really
> confused. I'm afraid you lost me in the first "the book is ok,
> I don't believe it needs changes, but wait, I have these
> changes to do". :-)
>
> I suppose I'll try and clarify what I asked in the previous
> message:
>
> What exactly does changing the packages and instruction commands
> do to benefit a (B)LFS X installation?
>
> Because if the answer is simply cosmetics, or FHS compliance,
> then I'd rather punt and let's get a release out.
>
>   
Sorry, I was discussing three different issues.  I'll try to clear it 
up.  FYI, no commits have been made yet. 

1:  FHS compliance is easy, I just wanted to test *all* the packages to 
make sure something didn't overwrite the symlinks.  That needs to go in 
now. 

2:  My comment "the book is ok," was in reference to the libXfont 
version and the version of FreeType that is in the book.  Also that 
lbxproxy and proxymgr are still in the book.   That is not really 
hurting anything AFAIK.  As far as benefits of the Alexander's 
additional changes, we get rid of 5 unmaintained packages and two 
programs (xorgcfg?? and xorgconfig) that don't work anyway.  Because 
they are not used anymore, nobody has even noticed that these programs 
haven't worked since around Xorg-7.1.  The unmaintained packages 
(lbxproxy, proxymgr, and their app, proto, and lib packages) were 
supposed to have been removed, but haven't been yet according to upstream.

3:  Additionally, I have another commit ready to nix all of the leftover 
XFree86 text, but I deleted the text instead of commenting it out.  I 
had chosen to leave the leftover files in place until after branching.  
Either way, the XFree86 comments really should not be present in the 
book come release.  I have no problem going back and redoing the work if 
you think it's necessary, it's just comments and really not a big deal, 
just won't have the time until Friday.

-- DJ Lucas

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.




More information about the blfs-dev mailing list