On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 10:44:15AM +0200, Sven Luther scrawled: > On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 06:04:01PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote: > > xserver-xfree86-dbg ran. xserver-xfree86 didn't. I talked to mharris and > > upstream about it, and no-one really had any idea, so we passed it > > upstream. > > BTW, you don't build -dbg versions of the 4.3.0 package, right ? Of course I do. What gave you the idea I didn't? > > Yes, but we now support far more stuff than XFree86. > > Far more arches, yes. BTW, do you build your 4.3.0 package on all arches ? i386, powerpc, alpha - these are the architectures I have access to. sparc and ia64 also usually get built, but I don't have direct access to them. As I'm not a developer, I can't use d.o machines, either. alpha hasn't built lately due to a gzip bug, but aj and asuffield are banging out a patch on IRC right now. > > As I said, take your pick: always having the latest and "greatest", or > > something with rock-solid stability, in unstable. I'll go for the > > latter, personally. > > But if 4.3.0 doesn't make it into stable, like it seems to be going, > then we will ship with a more than a year old X release, and most newer > graphic cards will not work for our users. Which will be a shame, sure. I've never attempted to claim otherwise. > I think our priority should be that we ship sarge with a rock solid > stable and at least somewhat recent X server. I know that Branden's aim > is to have a rock solid unstable version, and that these two goals > conflict. Yes. Thing as, as I've said, Branden's working for free. And, not only are you demanding he do something, but you're demanding he do something *fundamentally* different, which he disagrees with. > > Considering I'm not in a position, either physically, or in terms of > > time, to pull a 4.4/5.0 package setup before it's released, and fully > > ported, then there's nothing *I* can personally do. As I said before, > > and to AJ, a lot of people talk about it, but there are only three > > people doing something about it. > > Yes, i understand that, but your public stance doesn't invite > cooperation. How does my public stance of "Hello, I need help, please give me a hand, I'm happy to work with you" not invite cooperation? I've asked for help at every turn, and thanked absolutely anyone involved with anything; look at my initial mail about 4.3 to debian-x, if you're unsure about either of these points. There's only so much I can do by myself, and I have, as I said, asked for help at every turn. The people who have helped - Joe D, Thom, Bdale, Robert M, Ishikawa, Branden, Dagfinn, Jaymz, Ethan B, et al - I've been immensely grateful to, and quite careful to try and thank. > > Yes, and how much work on the packages do you guys both do? > > And why do you think that is ? If someone get burned once, he will no > more approach the fire. To be fair, coming in and saying that you'll NMU XFree86 for a minor bug probably isn't the best way to approach it. > > Yes, but then you have the situation whereby some packages built with > > XFree86 4.3 don't work on 4.2 installations, because the API has > > changed, or whatever. It also bloats the archive, and the amount of work > > that would be spent doing this, is better spent on getting it ported. > > XFree86 should be backward compatible 10 years and more. This should not > be a problem, any program built against any xlibs should be able to run > with any x server. If this is not so, then it is a bug and should be > filled. Core stuff, sure. But what about something that, say, includes Xrandr support in a ./configure check? What if that check gets tripped in 4.3 and it then fails in 4.2? There's a lot more scenarios, too, if you stopped to have a think about it. Sure, libX11 hasn't bumped soname, but a great deal of other things have. > Exeption to this is features not available in older versions of xlibs > (like randr), which would depend or build depend on newer versions, or > things like the DRI packages from Michel. Not just that. New APIs. Lots of them. > > I don't ask Branden if I can wipe my nose, but I have frequent > > discussions with him about patches, packaging, directions, et al, on > > email and IRC. A lot more of the 4.3 design decisions than you may think > > have been made by Branden. > > Yes, but this discution is not made public, which don't invite > cooperation from other people either, so you cannot held a closed > developpment model and complain about the lack of people getting > involved at the same time. No, it's not public. "Do you think I should apply the IPv6 patch for -0ds1? Looks quite clean to me and appears to work", (the reply was: "I'm uneasy about introducing such a radical new feature in -1", FWIW), isn't interesting to debian-x, it's just spam. The key point here is that you haven't offered help, only demanded Branden and I change our development models. I cooperate quite extensively with anyone I work with, but so far I've basically been the lone hand packaging, apart from porters; and even then I try to keep them quite well up-to-date with the situation. If there's silence, it means I've been too busy/whatever to do anything, so nothing's changed. > > Which whole polemic? > > The XFree86 fork by Keith and the whole flamewar on the xforum mailing > list. I'm not getting into that. It's also completely tangential. > > Well, what makes you think that *we're* likely to get global commit > > access, especially given XFree86's track record with dealing with > > distribution vendors? > > If you submit good patches, you will get commit access eventually. The > things are changing, and it is evident that the core team will widden > the group of committers nextly. Also we have an unique area of expertise > which nobody outside of the X strike team has, we run X on 11 supported > linux architectures, and a handfull others too. This is a valuable > thing, and since nobody else has this expertize and the material to do > the porting, the Debian X Strike team is the natural choice for commit > access for things regarding porting issues. I have enough things in my plate, both paid and unpaid, to consume about four times the time I currently have available. I don't want to take on the responsibility of yet more upstream stuff. > Mike Harris had commit access, he misused it and lost it, but he had > commit access, and you self said that our packages are the best quality > of them all, so why should we not have access ? Although I wasn't there at the time, I've been told that Mike just made a mistake, not terribly much to it. And our packages *are* IMHO the best quality, yes. That's why I don't want to degrade that reputation by uploading packages I don't feel are ready, to sid. Or packages that don't run on all our architectures. Your two goals are conflicting: have the best packages, ergo get commit access, and pump everything in before it's released. > > I cannot stress this enough: paragraphs about the situation on debian-x > > are pointless. Diffs in emails to me are invaluable, and really the only > > way to get the whole thing moving quicker than it already is. > > Yes, but if you don't discuss it openly, people will think that there is > no point in helping out, because debian is only interested in 4.2.1, > which don't even build on all arches, and that's it. Which architectures is 4.2.1 lacking support for? My discussions with Branden can best be described as "menial", "semantical" and "utterly boring". They're about semantics. They're nothing earth-shattering. They're not even interesting, unless you're the one actually doing the packaging (i.e. me). I'll say it again: hot air on mailing lists isn't in the least helpful. Contributions are. Want to help? Daniel -- Daniel Stone <dstone@trinity.unimelb.edu.au> Developer, Trinity College, University of Melbourne
Attachment:
pgpMKR4nZpeKm.pgp
Description: PGP signature