On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:19:04PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 07:29:38PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org> writes: > > > I would argue that xfree86 could be in far better shape; X.Org 6.7.0 > > > was released in April 2004, 6.8.0 in August 2004 (IIRC), and there have > > > been two point releases of 6.8.x since. Despite the availability of > > > xorg packages, Debian is still languishing with XFree86 4.3 (release > > > date was February 2003, I believe). > > > [...] > > I should have noted that xfree86 is not up-to-date with upstream as > > you indicate, and I'm sorry for the oversight. > > That's a bit unfair. X.Org is a fork and so it's not obvious that Debian > should switch; newer versions of XFree86 (such as 4.5.0, just released) > don't have an appropriate license for Debian. I think it's pretty obvious that Debian should switch. Something about support for a hojillion newer cards that is not in XFree86, Composite/Damage/Fixes (not in XFree86), supported by all other major vendors, et al. But nevermind that. Can you make a case for sticking with XFree86? If you can, please do so. > There's also the issue of needing to get something stable to release, > rather than churning through new upstream releases. I never suggested it for Sarge, but whatever. > Daniel might still be bitter that his hostile takeover of a few years > back failed. I don't recall ever attempting a hostile takeover, but thanks for the sentiment, Hamish. Do you have anything constructive to contribute?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature