Re: X Strike Force X.Org X11 SVN commit: r2912 - in branches/7.1/xserver/xorg-server/debian: . patches
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 07:50:46PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-08-27 at 13:06 +0000, David Nusinow wrote:
> Are you seriously arguing that's the only significant upstream
> improvement in 7.1 vs. 7.0?
Come on, you know that this is just a small example. I'm not trying to
belittle anyone's work. All I want is to ship 7.1 with etch, and if that
means I have to make concessions then so be it. Would you have preferred
shipping 7.0?
> > I didn't realize I needed to ask for permission for such things. If the
> > -ignoreABI option didn't already exist, I wouldn't have done so. I didn't
> > really add anything new, I just provided a new way to get at it.
>
> Once the option is in xorg.conf and things work, people will tend to
> forget about the option even when it's not really needed anymore. Then
> when the ABI breaks again, that gets ignored, potentially causing all
> kinds of weird behaviour resulting in spurious bug reports that will
> waste the time of and potentially confuse bug triagers, unless they add
> the option to the already too long list of gotchas to watch out for.
Let me make this perfectly clear: This is not an option I like.
I know it's a huge problem to be able to ignore the ABI. But I didn't add
anything new. People would have modified their startx or gdm startup script
or whatever to run with -ignoreABI, and then they wouldn't have fixed them
later, which would have caused the same problems. I wasn't willing to add a
new feature to the loader that would ignore the ABI, but just a new config
file entry was fine.
Note that I was, at one point, asked if I could make -ignoreABI the
default. What I did was a compromise.
> > Also, if you want to remove it from upstream, go ahead, but I'd like
> > to discuss it first.
>
> Ah, so removing it requires discussion, but adding it didn't?
Well, removing a feature that someone else added is generally something
that should be discussed in my opinion. You're removing my work by removing
it, so I feel we should discuss it. By adding the feature, I didn't remove
anyone else's work.
> > I don't really love the option myself, but it'll very likely be a
> > patch that we have to carry around for a while in Debian if it doesn't
> > go upstream.
>
> I don't understand why, given that there is a compatible third party
> release now.
Yes, I'm very strongly considering disabling it for etch. But I want to
keep the patch around simply so that I don't have to re-make it in a year
and a half if this issue comes up again.
> Even without that, the Debian packaging of the older
> releases should have been able to arrange for -ignoreABI getting passed
> to the X server when necessary.
How? I looked in to automagically ignoring just the ABI mismatch of the
nvidia binary driver, but it didn't look clean. I'd love to hear better
suggestions.
- David Nusinow
Reply to: