[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Coordinating work around X.Org drivers



Hi everyone,

I've looked into Maintainer/Uploaders of packages matching
xserver-xorg-* and xf86-*, and tried to gather everyone.

(I also added some Ubuntu folks, for good measure.)

While preparing the xorg-server 1.7 → 1.9 switch, the dependency
handling between the server and the drivers got changed. AFAICT we've
got decent dependencies now, meaning the drivers provide a feature
(xorg-driver-input or xorg-driver-video), with no ABI mentioned
there. They also depend on the server ABI they were built against.

Documentation is available online:
  http://pkg-xorg.alioth.debian.org/reference/dependencies.html

It includes: explanations of upstream- and Debian-side ABI handling;
dependencies between packages; debian/control and debian/rules
examples.

Let me quote the (upcoming) last part:
| ## Staying tuned
| 
| Staying informed of driver-related changes can be a bit difficult in
| the following cases:
| 
|  * If one maintains a single driver within the X Strike Force, one
|    might not notice the few mails about drivers in the heavy mail flow
|    on debian-x@.
| 
|  * If one maintains a driver outside the X Strike Force, one is
|    probably not subscribed to the mailing list at all.
| 
| For those reasons, a mail alias is being set up to gather all
| maintainers interested in receiving driver-related mails.

If you're interested in being added to this alias, please let me know
in a private mail.

I posted a “Status of the drivers” mail to debian-x@ yesterday:
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2011/02/msg00243.html

Basically, for the upcoming weeks/months:
 - 1.9 goes to sid.
 - 1.10 goes to experimental.

If you have stuff you'd like to see mentioned in the “Debian XSF News”
(which appears on Planet Debian), please let me know. Along with other
X-related stuff, news appear on:
  http://blog.ikibiki.org/tags/xorg/

Thanks for your attention.

KiBi.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: