* Thierry Reding wrote: > * Michel Dänzer wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 10:48 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > 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. I just got word from Kristian, and he said that the dont-backfill-bg-none patch is not likely to get applied upstream, because it does indeed make the xserver behave in a non-compliant way. The no-move-damage patch isn't that "bad", because the damage spec just isn't clear on disabling damage events for moving subwindows. Kristian said it might be upstreamable, but he won't be going to push for that right now. Then again, both patches are not really essential, and compiz/AIGLX seem to work just fine without them, so I guess it's just a matter of taste, and if in doubt they can just be omitted. > > > 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. Kristian's just pushed this patch upstream[1]. From the commit message it might eventually get replaced by a better solution, but for now this should be fine to go into the Debian xserver. - Thierry [1]: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg-commit/2006-September/008730.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature