On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 11:06:19AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: >Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt enquired: >>The release team is currently working on a schedule for the lenny >>release cycle. For that, we want to gather some data from the bigger >>software packaging teams in Debian first. >> >>We would like to know which major upstream versions of X.org are >>expected to be released in the next 24 months and how much time you >>expect them to need to get stable enough for a Debian stable release. >> >>Our current, very rough plans would mean a release in 18 months, which >>would be in October 2008. We expect to shuffle this a bit around to fit >>everyone's needs, so please tell us if this date works for you. > >As I see it, there are three major developments going on in X.org at >the moment. > >1) active probing of video cards to allow a more dynamic setting and >resetting of video modes used. This work is mostly complete already >(available in experimental xserver-xorg-video-intel, soon to appear in >unstable). > >2) Support for input-hotplug. As with the dynamic modesetting in 1), >this allows for dynamic plugging in of X-related devices. Currently >being developed on the master X.org branch, should be ready in X11R7.3 >by June or July. > >3) More generally, making /etc/X11/xorg.conf completely redundant. I >believe this will not be achieved under 2), but is a longer term goal. > >As you can see, X.org's broad aims at the moment are to improve >usability by enabling the Xserver to be configured automatically >without user intervention. X.org is striving to keep to a relatively >strict six month release cycle, I would imagine six months is >sufficient time for us to stabilise X for the release of Lenny. So >with a goal of Oct 2008 we would expect to include X11R7.4, which >should have been released around Feb or Mar 2008. This would include >the new input-hotplug features. > >A long-standing bug which should be thought about is the GL licensing >problem [1]. SGI kindly contributed code for GL support in X, but their >licence is not DSFG. Upstream is not comfortable with the situation >either and there have been intentions to approach colleagues at SGI to >see about rationalising the licence, to the common X11 licence or >otherwise. However these correspondences proceed at a glacial >corporate rate - not high on corporate SGI's TODO list, you might say. >We've conveniently been ignoring the problem for Debian stable, do we >continue doing so, or are we capable of prodding SGI to accelerate the >discussions? Or do we ditch OpenGL support from Debian... ? I'm currently working for SGI (together with Russell Coker, in the same project). >Drew > >[1] bugs #368560, #368559, #211765 (I think this one is redundant, the >original bug mitosed into the others) and #368564 Aníbal Monsalve Salazar -- http://v7w.com/anibal
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature