Public SourceMage Discussion List

["David Brown" <dmlb2000 AT gmail.com>]

> The descriptions are an issue - particulary since upstream even doesn't
> have an opinion on these apparently.
> But could that help:
>
> http://wiki.x.org/wiki/ModuleDescriptions?highlight=%28module%29
>
> ?
> On the technical side, I must say that I don't have monolithic xorg on
> any box. The modular one works fine. Sometimes I forget that it's not
> standard already;-) Some stuff cast out of higher knowledge than by
> dependencies, but getting it into test would help these...

well I'd say until upstream figures out what the hell a good
description of a particular library is I'd say we can put descriptions
on the back burner.  We can always say that we support exactly what
upstream supports and they really don't have good descriptions for
these libraries.

Also I've been using xorg-modular on all my machines and haven't found
many problems with it (when I do there's a bug for it).

Checking all the spells in test that depend (or eventually depend) on
xorg manually would be too much for us right now. Maybe someone with
good prometheus knowledge could attempt to do this? I only find these
missing packages dependencies occasionally, and I do submit bugs for
them.

- David Brown