xorg-x11 partial patch review
0000_backport_from_upstream.diff
does not serve a functionally different purpose from
000_stolen_from_HEAD.diff
At this point both contain patches which are on upstream HEAD but not
upstream branch. They should probably be merged. And perhaps reorganized by
module; in particular, splitting out the radeon and nv patches into separate
modules is reasonable. Yes, I'm volunteering.
However I wouldn't do it until there's a patch audit list so that such
things can be noted on it; otherwise it will just confuse people doing
the patch audit.
More small-scale thoughts (would patches be welcome?):
001_kernel_version_in_banner.diff
won't apply cleanly to 6.8.2, because the name sanitization in that file
didn't go in until revision 1.9 of the Imakefile, and 6.8.2 tagged
revision 1.7. Either the patch can be respun (without changes)
against 6.8.2, or the name work can be stolen from HEAD.
Incidentally, would people be interested in annotations in the stolen_from_HEAD
patches indicating which upstream revisions they're present in? It could make
future work of this sort easier.
007_fix_xfree86_man_version_string.diff
It looks like this is still wanted. (It's cosmetic, right, to add the word
"Version" and some quotation marks so it's formatted right?) But I suspect
that changing xfree86.cf won't help, and we should instead (or additionally?)
change xorg.cf. I could do some testing if necessary. Actually, I suspect
this change belongs right in X11.tmpl. Hmm.
010_donot_build_XpConfig.diff
Does this really belong upstream? I wouldn't think so; it looks like it
depends on the particular packaging format with an xprint-common. In any
case it's not entirely clear that Debian will need to keep xprint-common
forever. Suggest moving this to a 900-series patch.
099z_xkb_fix_rules_xfree86.diff
The patch has been updated to X.org, but oddly the comments and patch name
haven't been.
990_ubuntu_accept_enabled_for_extensions.diff
probably deserves to go upstream
Comments regarding upstream submission to XFree86 should probably be
replaced with "Not submitted upstream"; I'd be willing to prepare such
a patch as well.
--
This space intentionally left blank.
Reply to: