Bug#412069: patch for beryl support
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 10:39:13AM +0100, Robert Millan [ackstorm] wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 06:25:51PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 10:26:09AM +0100, Robert Millan [ackstorm] wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 11:02:02PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I haven't decided if enabling composite by default is a wise move yet. No
> > > > one in Debian has done a real analysis as to what the downsides of such a
> > > > decision are.
> > > >
> > > > While compiz and beryl may be very sexy, I don't want to break or degrade
> > > > performance on systems not running them simply for the convenience of not
> > > > having to modify xorg.conf. It's not out of the question, but I don't want
> > > > to blindly enable options in our default settings for the bling of it.
> > >
> > > Than can we conditionalise it? We could add a question with priority
> > > 'normal' that most users won't see. Then in the post-etch era, the Beryl
> > > community can add a "reconfigure xserver-xorg and enable beryl settings"
> > > step in their how-tos.
> > >
> > > If we were to do that, I suppose we would prefer to have XAANoOffscreenPixmaps
> > > and AddARGBGLXVisuals as well.
> >
> > I'd be fine with that. You'll have to ask the translation team for
> > permission on this one though. I've cc'ed Christian in case he's not
> > reading this report.
>
> Can I assume that, since you agreed to Composite by default in the other
> sub-thread, we're only discussing XAANoOffscreenPixmaps and AddARGBGLXVisuals
> here ?
Exactly. I don't think composite needs a debconf question.
- David Nusinow
Reply to: