[Please CC me: I'm not subscribed.] On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 09:45:42AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 10:36:25AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > > I'm sorry, this turned out to be very long-winded, but since many people > > are interested in what's going on with X.Org, I may as well explain to a > > larger audience than debian-x what's in store. > > Thanks for bringing concrete information to the discussion. Yeah, one which was definitely not in need of any more hot air ... > > What I've decided to do with X.Org is a compromise. I'm using the Ubuntu > > packages as a base, but I've spent the last month doing as careful an > > audit of them as I can, comparing them to the XFree86 packaging, and > > reverting what changes I don't agree with, keeping the ones that I like, > > etc. > > Did you discuss these plans with any Ubuntu developers? How much have you > changed relative to the Ubuntu packages? > > From what I can tell from the changelog, Daniel merged a batch of > changes from Debian XFree86 SVN into the Ubuntu packages in 6.8.2-16, but I > don't know what portion of your changes this represents. I've been talking to David a lot both via email and IRC, and we've been feeding back to each other via both of these mechanisms. So far the delta has been minimal, and I'm confident we can keep it incredibly small. > > Furthermore, Branden has had plans to shift the packaging to a different > > patch system, and we plan to move ahead with that as soon as we have X.Org > > packages in the archive. We'll be branching off the trunk which is derived > > from the modified Ubuntu packaging, so while we're using the Ubuntu > > packages as a base (which were the Debian packages originally anyway) > > we're going to make some radical changes to the system. This packaging can > > potentially be used for the X.Org 6.9 release, which will be the last > > monolithic version to be releaseed during the transition to a modular > > tree. We may never release 6.9 packages in Debian, but this will provide > > us with a good foundation for it if we do. This work will be done > > independantly of Ubuntu (as no one from Ubuntu seems interested in > > helping) so we'll go it alone. > > Ubuntu isn't likely to spend time on another monolithic release, given that > we're in the process of going modular right now. If your eventual goal is > to use the modular tree as well, why wouldn't you do it immediately, given > the opportunity to use Ubuntu's work as a base? I'm not bothering with 6.9, personally. I'll continue to maintain the 6.8 tree and make sure that the bits of it that aren't modularised are still usable and great quality, but I'm rapidly hacking bits off. > > As the upstream X.Org tree gets modularized, we're going to begin to work > > on packaging that instead. My personal preference is to use the modular > > tree (which will be entirely equivalent to the 6.9 release otherwise, > > except called 7.0) but if it's not ready for us, we can stick with 6.9, so > > as to get the latest drivers to our users. Members of both the XSF, > > including myself and Josh Triplett (who's already begun this work) and > > Ubuntu developers (Daniel Stone) will be working on this together. My goal > > is to have as close a tree for both Ubuntu and Debian as possible, > > preferrably the same tree, but again we'll have to see what happens. > > Again, I'd be interested to hear details of what you needed to change > relative to the Ubuntu packages in order to achieve a result which you found > suitable. Josh and I both started from different bases (me from a set of templates I'd written, largely based off my packages from mid-last year, and Josh from his own set of templates), but we're converging with the aim of having at least the entirety of xlibs in perfect harmony between the two. Right now, the only sticking point of any significance whatsoever is cdbs vs debhelper+dpatch. > > I plan to use the patch system Branden and I will develop for the > > monolithic tree in the modular tree, and if the Ubuntu developers decide > > that this isn't the best option then they can go their own route, unless > > they can demonstrate that an alternate system is preferrable. > > We would of course evaluate this decision based on technical merit, but my > knee-jerk reaction would be "why write yet another patch system"? I've seen the patch system, and my comments on debian-x was that it was absolutely insane, and utterly doomed to failure. Nothing's changed. In short, we're getting there, just slowly. The only sticking point is that I think the proposed 6.8.2-1 for Debian is absolutely nonsensical (the source package format just doesn't make any sense to me, none at all, even if it is managed by Subversion, or if it was managed by something like Arch), and that Ubuntu will likely develop at a pace slightly more rapid than Debian's, given that 6.8.2-1 in sid looks to still be a long way off if the plan is still to rewrite the entire source packaging, and Ubuntu's breezy already has large chunks of the tree modularised. But I'm sure that myself, David and Josh will eventually work through all the issues; we have minor quibbles every now and then, but I think that we enjoy a very good working relationship, by and large. So the future's looking quite good. Daniel, dreaming of a world where Debian's X implementation is laudable, not laughable
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature