xouvert? (was Re: Cygwin/XFree86 - No longer associated with XFree86.org)

[Harold L Hunt II]

Mitch,

Mitchell Skinner wrote:
> FWIW,
> 
> I read the cygwin-xfree mailing list archives from time to time, and I
> just read the devel@xfree86.org thread linked from /., and it looks to
> me like Harold was being pretty reasonable and was getting a terrible
> response.

Thanks.  It was so weird to write what I thought was a reasonable reply 
only to be essentially shouted at in response.  It is reassuring to get 
messages from people saying that my posts were in fact reasonable.

> I followed the forum@xfree86.org discussion and the xwin.org and
> xouvert.org bits, and at first I wasn't sure if the complainers had a
> real beef or if the hubbub was the outcome of some bizarre historical
> politics, but it's becoming clearer and clearer that the xfree86 guys
> are dropping the ball.  Lots of long-time, serious contributors are all
> saying the same thing; hopefully all those that have a problem with the
> old system can get together and start a single new mainline rather than
> splinter into a bunch of different groups.

It looks like people are regrouping.  Keith Packard and Jim Gettys are 
over at freedesktop.org.  They have most of the libs (that aren't 
maintained elsewhere) imported and autotooled.  I think that is going to 
be my long-term destination for our bits... but I am going to work in an 
xc/ style repository in the mean time.  It will take a few months to 
whip the autotooled build into shape, and I don't want to forgo having a 
CVS tree during that period.

xouvert is using Arch.  I am not really familiar with Arch; I don't even 
know if it works on Cygwin.  I personally don't think I would have the 
time to invest in setting up and maintaining a version of the code in 
xouvert... but I would not be opposed to someone else doing this and 
tracking my patches.  That would be advantageous to us and them.

> Speaking of which, since the xouvert guys announced their intention to
> fork, I've been wondering which way cygwin-xfree86 would go.  What do
> cygwin-xfree subscribers think about that?

Oops, I think I told you above :)

Harold