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

Re: compiz packages



* Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 10:48 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >
> >   20_dont-backfill-bg-none.diff:
> >     Not applied upstream, but probably just an optimization.
>
> [...]
>
> >   26_offscreen-pixmaps.diff:
> >     Not applied upstream. It seems to disables all offscreen pixmaps. Option
> >     "XAANoOffscreenPixmaps" works just as well, but there may be more involved.
>
> The patch only disables offscreen pixmaps when the
> GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap extension is first used, so it's probably an
> improvement for people switching between GLX compositing managers and
> other means of presentation. However, I wonder if this works with EXA.
> It doesn't seem to check that XAA is actually active, and I suspect it's
> basically luck if the XAA functions don't crash when it's not. This
> needs clarifying before the patch can be applied.

I would be willing to do some testing, but I'm unsure as to where to start.
In addition, I only have an Intel 855GM card to test on, and IIRC, EXA for
the i810 driver wasn't very stable last time I checked.

> >   28_no-move-damage.diff:
> >     Not applied upstream, probably just an optimization. Kristian comments
> >     about why this patch is useful.
>
> Can you check with him why he hasn't pushed it upstream yet? Last I
> heard it had some semantic issues IIRC. The same may be true about patch
> 20 I suspect.

I will do that.

> > In summary, patches 25 and 27 are essential to make the xserver build. 
> 
> ... with a current Mesa snapshot?

Yes, I'm currently running a recent version from Kristian's mirrored Mesa in
git.

> > Patch 23 is also more or less necessary, because otherwise X is unusable after
> > switching to the console and back.
>
> Indeed. Without this patch, AIGLX should definitely be disabled by
> default for etch. With this patch (or whatever ends up getting applied
> upstream), we could leave it enabled by default for now and wait for bug
> reports once it's in sid or even testing.

I can only say that the patch works fine for me, but I am uncertain as to why
it hasn't been included upstream. I will ask Kristian about it.

> > Finally I think it'd be safe to also add patches 21, 22 and 24 since they have 
> > already been applied to upstream git, and especially 21 dramatically increases 
> > rendering speed.
> 
> I agree. These patches should have very low if any impact outside of
> AIGLX.
> 
> > The only problem remaining is that the version of Mesa currently in
> > experimental is not recent enough for compiz to work correctly.
> 
> I think we should go with the 6.5.1 release anyway.

That was going to be next on my checklist. Try and build with Mesa 6.5.1, but
I think Shawn already tried that and it still needed some patching to work
correctly, but I'll double-check.

I am going to be away on holiday for a week from tomorrow, and it's unlikely
I'll get any further testing done, but I'll get back to it as soon as I'm
back (which should be around the 16th).

 - Thierry

P.S.: no need to Cc: me, I'm subscribed to the list.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: