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

Re: Feature Freeze

David wrote:
>  There is a minor update for libxau located upstream, as well
> > as libXScreenSaver, which I suppose we should include. I didn't touch
> > libXScreenSaver previously because I wasn't sure how best to manage it
> > in regards to libxss. Keep the old name? Update to the new?
> The minor updates are fine, although they don't really seem to be
> worthwhile iirc, since they basically just allow you to run lint during
> builds, which isn't interesting to us. If you want to do the update though,
> go for it. 

I'd like to do it for aesthetic purity, so we can say etch really does
contain X11R7.1 without having to cough about thte ifs and buts.

> As for xss, I say we leave the package name as it is for etch and then fix
> it later. Changing the package name this late in the game doesn't really
> buy us anything interesting. I'd be happy to have it be one of those
> instant changes we make once etch is out though.

OK, we'll keep it as libxss for now then.

> > I'm interested in packaging the developmental i810 (intel) modesetting
> > branch. Alan is keen for people to test it. I'd think to call the new
> > package xserver-xorg-video-intel, since I think X.org upstream will be
> > calling it "intel" once it's finally released.  I'd put lots of "this
> > driver is a development snapshot, only use it if you really mean it"
> > warnings into the description.
> I'm not sure renaming the driver is a good move right now. I don't want to
> jump the gun on upstream. I also don't want people who will inevitably fail
> to read the warning to install it thinking that it's the only intel video
> driver when they should be using the i810 package. Admittedly,
> xserver-xorg-video-i810-modesetting is a mouthful, so if there's a
> compromise in there somewhere that'd probably be ideal.

Ah I see. Because the upstream module was renamed "xf86-video-intel", I
had assumed they were renaming the new driver "intel".  But looking
inside the modesetting branch I see the driver is still called "i810".
So you're right, xserver-xorg-video-i810-modesetting makes more sense
in that case, until upstream fully renames it. Unless I missed
something, this means i810-modesetting will have to conflict with (and
replace) i810, since it generates the same i810_drv.so (rather than
intel_drv.so which is what I had assumed it was doing). A pity, since
this makes it a little harder to test and compare the two side by side.


Reply to: