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

Re: Future of X packages in Debian

On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 11:08:39AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 10:34:09AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> > The XSF should support only a single X server using the "standard" DDX
> > for now.  With a virtual package, someone could package up kdrive X
> > servers and let people use them on smaller systems.
> kdrive has already been ITPed[2] by Daniel Stone, so I presume it's his
> Intention to Package it.

I intend to follow through on both my xlibs and xserver ITPs, yes. They
aren't bitrotting.

> > > * Should we go our own way starting from the "sanitized" XFree86 CVS
> > >   snapshot we've prepared?
> > 
> > No, this way madness lies.  However, I think we should make sure we 
> > understand where license issues exist in the upstream source; if that 
> > source is distributed in small pieces, we can correctly mark pieces 
> > incompatible with the GPL and get them fixed.
> I've shared my own observations on these points with the freedesktop.org
> release wranglers list and X.Org Foundation list.  We seem to be missing
> someone to take action, and in the case of commits cloned between
> XFree86 CVS and X.Org CVS, I haven't yet seen acknowledgment that there
> is a problem (or enough information to rule out a problem) from the
> person who did it.

AIUI, these commits are all cleared by an author-internal filter as to
licence cleanliness.

> This has given me the impression that the matters I've raised aren't a
> priority.  It would be nice to be taken seriously instead, especially
> given that most of the community has sent a very loud and strong message
> that "yes, Virginia, license issues *are* important".

They have priority, but it's important that a half-arsed job is actually
worse than no job at all. We need someone skilled in these matters to do
the audit, and do it *properly*; what we don't need is a false sense of

> I do hasten to add that I'd appreciate your advice in communicating
> these things more effectively.  I know they've been seen and read.  What
> I don't know is why there isn't a fire under anyone to get them
> resolved.  Maybe the fire should be under me?  Would I be useful to
> freedesktop.org as a one-man license gestapo?

You would be incredibly useful in this regard - I'm willing to give you
access to the xserver (where debrix lies), xlibs, and xapps repository
with a mandatory to do a licence audit, and cleanup if necessary. Would
you be willing to do this?

> (I do acknowledge that you've given me access to X.Org CVS and that I
> haven't done anything with it.  Maybe I just need a nudge?)

*hopeful nudge*.

> > > * If we standardize on just one, which one should it be?
> > 
> > Each package should come from the canonical upstream source, not some 
> > repackaged distribution.
> Heh, well, deciding who's "canonical" these days is the real trick,
> isn't it?  :)

... take your pick out of three. Four if you count a dead tree the
author publicly disowns as a learning exercise. :)

> > The work at in the xserver and xlibs projects at freedesktop.org can be 
> > considered a prototype for how a modular X project might work; I'm hoping 
> > to get all of that sorted out this summer with X.Org.
> Excellent.  Do you think there's any cause for concern with regards to
> gray-area X servers like Xvfb and Xnest?  I'm thinking of issues like
> divergent extension support between users of XFree86 4.4.0 and later
> and, well, the rest of the world.

Could you please elaborate on this point?

:) d

Daniel Stone                                                <daniels@debian.org>
Debian: the universal operating system                     http://www.debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: