Re: X11R7.2

[Timo Aaltonen <tjaalton@cc.hut.fi>]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Julien Cristau wrote:

Hi Julien,

> 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?

I have no idea, really :)

> - 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)

Yes, that was unfortunate.. I can put the changelog in there so you can 
have a look. I'll do a proper merge for the "final" version ;)

> 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?)

I didn't do much research if some of those are obsolete, they just apply 
cleanly after a refresh..

> 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 :)

heh, after googling a bit I found it:

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg-commit/2006-August/008627.html


(it's funny how many hits you get with "XXX terrible hack" :)

t