Hi Timo, On Fri, Feb 9, 2007 at 17:02:46 +0200, Timo Aaltonen wrote: > For some strange reason I started to update the Ubuntu xorg-stuff two > nights ago, and I spent most of yesterday merging xserver-xorg. So, in > order to avoid duplicate effor I've put xorg-server here for you to > take a look: > > http://users.tkk.fi/~tjaalton/xorg72/ > > I hope it makes it easy for you to cherry pick what you find useful.. > (note that I haven't even built it yet) > I just looked at your diff.gz, and here are some comments: - the serverabiver file doesn't seem to be used anywhere (at least on a quick grep in the drivers I didn't find anything), do we need to keep it? - when you sync from debian, it seems that the old ubuntu changelog entries are removed, which means the explanation for your patches disappear, if they're not in the patch header; it makes it difficult to know what the patches are supposed to fix (patch 102, eg) Patches we don't seem to have: * 102_ubuntu_sharevts_load_cpu.patch * 110_fedora_no_move_damage.patch * 104_fedora_init_origins_fix.patch * 106_ubuntu_fpic_libxf86config.patch (don't know what this is supposed to do, libxf86config is a static lib afaics, it shouldn't need -fPIC) * 107_fedora_dont_backfill_bg_none.patch * 108_fedora_gl_include_inferiors.patch * 114_fedora_no_composite_in_xnest.patch * 120_fedora_disable_offscreen_pixmaps.diff * 121_only_switch_vt_when_active.diff * 123_no_composite_for_xvfb_run.patch (adds -extension Composite to XVFBARGS in debian/local/xvfb-run, we may want to include that?) Does anyone know the status of these patches wrt upstream inclusion? Patch 114 explicitely says it's a "terrible hack", so that one probably doesn't qualify :) Cheers, Julien
Attachment:
pgp2Af88IJlMK.pgp
Description: PGP signature