X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4CB5AE26.6000606@dronecode.org.uk> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:03:34 +0100 From: Jon TURNEY Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com CC: towo AT towo DOT net Subject: Re: How to know if the x11 display uses 24-bit RGB color or instead uses a color palette with a fixed number of colors References: <20101008022744 DOT 76266 DOT qmail AT web3309 DOT mail DOT ogk DOT yahoo DOT co DOT jp> <4CAEEDFE DOT 9090907 AT towo DOT net> <4CB30C0D DOT 8020900 AT towo DOT net> In-Reply-To: <4CB30C0D.8020900@towo.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On 11/10/2010 14:07, Thomas Wolff wrote: > Am 11.10.2010 09:41, schrieb Csaba Raduly: >> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Thomas Wolff wrote: >>> Am 08.10.2010 04:50, schrieb Mark Geisert: >>>> For a while now the X components have been unbundled and can be installed >>>> separately, mostly. >>> I wonder why they were unbundled. It has been suggested here before that it >>> would be useful to bundle the typical tiny X tools with the default X >>> installation, just to avoid such trouble. They are 'unbundled', because that's the way upstream X.Org provides them since X11 Release 7.0. It's really so much nicer to deal with modular X than the monolith containing everything. >> Because not everybody has the same needs. Before the unbundling, I had >> to install the entirety of X just to be able to run makedepend; >> several megabytes of unused stuff just for a single, 23k executable. > I understand. But here we speak of the opposite situation. A number of tools > (10, 20?) most of which are only a few K. By installing ~1MB total many users > looking for standard tools would not have to search or ask. The problem here is that everyone has a different idea about what the 'standard' tools to install are, namely 'those tools that I use' :-) Nevertheless, if you can provide a list, and some evidence as to why this list is correct (for example: these tools are installed by default on all linux distros, so the user has a reasonable expectation of them being installed), it might happen. -- Jon TURNEY Volunteer Cygwin/X X Server maintainer -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple