On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 17:39 +1000, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 10:54:57PM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote: > > david_nusinow@verizon.net (David Nusinow) writes: > > > The modularization effort seems to be progressing, > > > but if we can move to quilt rapidly then we'll be all the better for it, > > > since that experience can be applied to the modular tree packaging when > > > it's ready. > > > > Why not move directly to packaging the modular tree? Time spent working on > > putting a monolithic x.org build in Debian seems like wasted time to me. > > The modular transition is very tricky -- indeed, large swathes are not > completed. The modularisation of the server right now sits only in a > directory under ~daniels on my laptop. Most drivers aren't done, and > not of all the libraries are even completed. All we're really pressed to provide is an X server, so the library and application modularization isn't necessary today. As soon as the core server is modularized, transitioning individual drivers can be massively parallelized. > > Throw in a /usr/X11R6 -> /usr transition (mindblowingly difficult in > myriad ways, as I'm discovering), and you have something which we cannot > move to right now. There's far less interaction between the files needed for the X server and the rest of the X bits, so we could make the modular X server use /usr while leaving the libraries alone for now. > > I advocated moving to it earlier, which was fine; it's still a very > worthwhile project to sit down and plan for. Josh Triplett and I are > doing that now, and we're rapidly approaching a fully-converged package > set for Debian and Ubuntu, which is great. > > But, the reality is, that's still not right around the corner, and we're > stuck in this ridiculous situation where people who bought computers in > mid-to-late 2003 can't run Debian released in mid-2005, which is > absolutely, mindblowingly, absurd. Start with the server, which fixes this problem, then do the harder work necessary for clients, libraries, docs, fonts, etc. > > We need X.Org in unstable, and we need it in unstable ... well, early > last year. We really only need the X server. > In short: if we route around the current horrendous breakage that is the > XSF, we have half a chance. If we continue to dance around with > ludicrous patch audits while users who cannot start X twiddle their > thumbs (or, far more likely, go somewhere else), then the situation is, > as it has been for the last four years, utterly hopeless. I suggest just providing new packages which permits existing packages to remain in place so that people can choose until the new packages are proven. The size of the delta from Debian X to anything ever shipped from upstream means that we will have a significant transition effort in any case. Allowing people to choose when they are afflicted by this pain will avoid the worst of the problems. -keith
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part