Re: [packages] gtk+, glib, imlib

[Nicholas Wourms <nwourms at yahoo dot com>]

--- Harold L Hunt <huntharo@msu.edu> wrote:
> Nicholas Wourms <nwourms@yahoo.com> said:
> 
> > 
> > --- Harold L Hunt <huntharo@msu.edu> wrote:
> > > Nicholas,
> > > 
> > > > He has something.  Frankly, I think we should let harold release
> these
> > > > packages.  He's got a firm understanding of the underlying
> mechanics
> > > of
> > > > how X works.  Plus if you commit to maintainership of 1.X, then it
> is
> > > > assumed that you will be working on porting 2.X.  Are you ready
> for
> > > this
> > > > responsibility?
> > > 
> > > It is not going to happen.  I simply do not have time to work on
> > > packages
> > > other than Cygwin/XFree86 proper.  Sure, I have released a few extra
> > > packages,
> > > but that was just to get the ball rolling on XFree86 category
> packages. 
> > > For
> > > future reference: I do not intend to assume maintainership of any
> new
> > > packages.  However, I reserve the right to post an initial version
> of
> > > packages
> > > that compile out of the box, just to get things started.
> > > 
> > > I hope that clears things up,
> > 
> > Harold,
> > 
> > I'm sorry, I never meant to unload additional work onto you.  In
> previous
> > messages regarding berkley db, you mentioned that you were going to
> stick
> > to X packages, so I assumed you meant the packages you were already
> > working on for X.  Apparently this is not the case, which is OK.  I'm
> glad
> > you cleared things up for everyone.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> 
> I will admit that I gave some mixed signals.  I thought I was going to
> have a
> lot more free time, which I do.  But I also thought that XFree86 itself
> would
> not take anymore time than it already did.  However, there has been no
> shortage of things to do for XFree86.  After we get the scrollbars patch
> landed and the cross compilation fixes merged I really do plan on
> working on a
> rootless server.

That's true, *sigh*, I know what you mean.  Tho I can't quite understand
what this driving desire for a rootless X server is all about?  To my
death, I'll never understand why people like the explorer window manager
over the X alternatives.  I mean c'mon people, Windows Explorer as a
window manager sucks.  Why would you want it to manage your X
applications?  I don't know about most people, but I like the current way
X works, in fact I like the full screen even better.  In fact I wish there
was a way to do the opposite of running X in rootless mode.  If there were
only a way to get windows binaries to pop up inside X, then I could just
ditch this crummy explorer windows manager and use X full time.  In fact,
on Darwin, I hate the window manager for Aqua.  I'd much prefer to run
kde3 any day then to run that OpenSTEP look-alike.

>  You may have seen some place-holding files creep into
> the
> patches lately.  That is because I have been studying the XonX code to
> how it
> does things.  If you ever want to look at sloppy, convuluted,
> uncommented
> code, just have a look at xc/programs/Xserver/hw/darwin.  Yikes.  That
> code
> can really give you a headache.

Hmm, this coming from bsd nuts who cannot even get the name of Charles
Darwin's famous assistant right (Hexley != Huxley)?  Does this really
suprise you?

Cheers,
Nicholas

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com