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

Re: Xorg 6.9



On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 11:34:10PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> Hello Release Team,
>    X.Org is planning on making a release of 6.9 and 7.0 in about a week.
> I've been preparing packages for 6.9, the monolithic release, based off the
> current Xorg packages. They've been sitting in experimental and they've
> been fairly well tested judging by the bug reports we've gotten so far. The
> packages that went in to experimental today are for RC3, which represent an
> essentially code-complete version of what will be the final release. The
> remainder should be documentation updates and modular build system updates.
> As such, the current packages should represent what will be the final 6.9
> release.

>    I realize that there's a lot of transitions going on right now, but I'd
> like permission to upload 6.9 final to unstable upon release. Here are the
> consequences of doing this that I'm currently aware of:

>   1) Render and Xrender both need updates, with an soversion bump. These
>   packages are basically ready, and have been in experimental for some
>   time, and with some small amount of polish they'll be ready to go.

- render doesn't need an soversion bump, because it doesn't build a shared
  library (at least in Debian).
- per your comments on IRC, upstream hasn't bumped sonames on xrender yet.
  Are you sure that xrender actually needs an soname change, rather than
  just a shlibs change?  This libs has 328 reverse-dependencies in unstable;
  it's likely that a number of these are spurious, but it would still make
  for an inconvenient transition.  Does the version currently in
  experimental match the code you'll be uploading?  If not, where can I
  find the source to determine whether we're looking at a transition in the
  near future?

>   2) The only lib to get an soversion change in xorg-x11 itself is libICE,
>   which has a minor soversion bump to allow it to be built modularly.

Correction: as we discussed on IRC, this is a shlibs bump, not an soversion
change.  An soversion change in libICE would really, *really* suck...

>   3) xlibs-dev goes away. I already wrote about this to -devel-announce,
>   and many packages have updated their build dependencies, including most
>   recently gtk. This will almost definitely be the most drastic of the
>   changes with this update, but it will also serve to pave the way for the
>   modular packages, which is currently my main focus of attention.

What time frame are we looking at for the upload?  I think we should be
aggressively patching/NMUing for the xlibs-dev transition in advance of the
actual removal of xlibs-dev; this weekend's BSP would be a great time to
start...

> The majority of the packaging is the same as what's currently in unstable.
> The majority of the builds will choke on the MANIFEST again, but now that I
> know what I'm doing with respect to that system (which I didn't during the
> original xorg uploads) I can get that fixed for the second revision of the
> packages, provided the toolchains are working.

> The benefit to allowing the update to go through will be to allow newer
> driver revisions, numerous bugfixes, and it will also pave the way for the
> modular packages, which I am attempting to finish in time for etch.

> So if it's Ok to let this go through next week that'd be great news, and if
> not I'd like to hear what I'll be waiting on so I can track how things 
> progress. Thanks!

I don't see anything that should block letting this in next week, at least
if libxrender turns out to be a shlibs change and not an soname change. 
Let's let the rest of the release team comment as well, though.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: