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

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

On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 12:59:01AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> 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.

We carefully evaluated aiglx and found that it was ok, with a few patches
that we applied prior to uploading compiz support in to Debian. As it is,
it should be solid, and in the buggy cases it's very easy to disable.

My earlier comments about enabling composite by default stand. Composite
itself is solid right now, but I'm not sure how it would effect kwin
users[0].  Aside from that, it shouldn't be a problem because the server
won't actually do any sort of redirection unless a compositing manager is

> > 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.

Sure, there's no way I want compiz to be the default Debian wm at this
stage, but the bugs you see more likely due to issues specific to the
interaction of compiz with composite and aiglx.  Neither composite nor
aiglx should affect normal usage for most people, since under normal
circumstances most GL programs will use DRI instead of glx just like in the
past, and all the traditional drawing operations will go through the same
rendering paths they always did. It's just that if users explicitly run
compiz or beryl, it exposes problems, but again, this shouldn't affect
traditional use.

> 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.


 - David Nusinow

[0] I'd love some feedback from KDE people on this. I'll sit down and poke
    around the kwin code a bit to see how it works if I have the time.

Reply to: