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

Re: Is something wrong to XGL, Compiz, Cgwd be packaged?



On Saturday 28 October 2006 23:56, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > Is that really a good idea for something that is so young and
> > untested, so shortly before the release?
> > Is it wanted for all architectures, for all systems, irrespective of
> > their speed?
>
> Calm down Frans, what about aiglx then?

Yes, possibly the same goes for aiglx.

> I wrote 'if there will be no 
> regressions', that's up to XSF and the users using unstable and even
> testing tell us. I still trust our release process (as in
> unstable->testing).

The problem that we hardly have the time to get feedback.
I do know that I currently see loads of bug reports passing by on the 
debian-x list relating to compiz, beryl and related stuff, which would 
make me very reluctant to enable anything by default.

However, I will be the first to admit that I have not used any of it 
myself so far and don't know enough about it anyway. My mail was purely 
intended to make the people working on this take a step back and ask 
themselves if these new functionalities are really ready to be enabled by 
default.

> Btw, i like the debconf suggestion too.

Only if the question is only asked at lower debconf priorities and still 
have sensible defaults.

Attachment: pgp46JsIiIa0F.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: