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

Re: Future of X packages in Debian

On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 09:02:50AM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> Our questions to the community are:
> * What kinds of X packages would you like to see in the future?

Working ones. With as few (upstream and debian-specific) bugs as

Case at hand: I have yet to see the first XFree86 (server|module) and
graphics board combination that
* supports the full potential of the board
* does not reproducably receive SIGSEGV
* is free

This is, of course, not the fault of the Debian X strike force, but it's
painful none the less.

> * Should we regard X.Org or FreeDesktop.Org as our upstream source?

Whichever of the two helps further the above goal.

> * Should we go our own way starting from the "sanitized" XFree86 CVS
>   snapshot we've prepared?

If you think you can do a better job than both of the two upstreams, I'd
say go for it; but I think that's a huge job.

> * Should we ensure that multiple implementations of the X Window System
>   are packaged, or standardize on just one?

It would be great if we would have the man power to support two
(or more) competing X Window System implementations, but wouldn't it be
more prudent to start off with one and add more if people seem to be
doing "nothing"?

> * If we standardize on just one, which one should it be?

The one that will, in your opinion, serve our users best.

I'm deliberately not choosing sides here, even though I know you're
asking for people to choose sides. IMO, however, you (the X Strike
Force) are best qualified to choose which way to go from now. I
therefore suggest you consider the above guidelines (and add some of
your own), and make the decision for yourself.

After all, _you_ will be the one people will yell at when you chose the
X Window System with the most features (because people like features)
but with the most bugs, too.

     smog  |   bricks
 AIR  --  mud  -- FIRE
soda water |   tequila
 -- with thanks to fortune

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: