X.Org Server 1.20.11 Released Due To New Security Advisory

[phoronix]

Phoronix: X.Org Server 1.20.11 Released Due To New Security Advisory

Trend Micro's Zero Day Initiative has uncovered another security issue with the X.Org Server...

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=X.Org-Server-1.20.11

[chromer]

Xorg is dying...

[MadeUpName]

I recently did an upgrade to FC-34. I am running KDE on X-Wayland. This got me curious so I had a look and I have xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.20.10-5.fc34.x86_64 installed. I wanted to see what it would do if I tried to remove it as I assumed xorg-x11-server-Xwayland should be doing all the work now. But if I try to remove it it is going to take out my amdgpu driver. Is xorg-x11-server-Xorg really still a dependency if you are running xorg-x11-server-Xwayland or is there just an unnecessary dependency in the driver package?

[Leprechaunius]

If they can release from 1.20.x branch so easily, why can't they simply make a build and release the 1.21.0 ?
What's the difference?

[StarterX4]

Breaking news.

Xorg server 1.21.LOL released.

This could be a great release on Fool's Day.

[scottishduck]

I recently did an upgrade to FC-34. I am running KDE on X-Wayland. This got me curious so I had a look and I have xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.20.10-5.fc34.x86_64 installed. I wanted to see what it would do if I tried to remove it as I assumed xorg-x11-server-Xwayland should be doing all the work now. But if I try to remove it it is going to take out my amdgpu driver. Is xorg-x11-server-Xorg really still a dependency if you are running xorg-x11-server-Xwayland or is there just an unnecessary dependency in the driver package?

As I understand it, XWayland wouldn’t need the xorg-x11-dev-amdgpu driver as wayland uses the kernel driver and not the xorg one.

[cynic]

If they can release from 1.20.x branch so easily, why can't they simply make a build and release the 1.21.0 ?
What's the difference?

developers don't want to release 1.21 because they don't want to take the burden of maintaining that release.
all the X devs are tired of working on it so, as someone said before, Xorg is basically dead.

[Leprechaunius]

developers don't want to release 1.21 because they don't want to take the burden of maintaining that release.
all the X devs are tired of working on it so, as someone said before, Xorg is basically dead.

But they are already maintaining the 1.20 releases anyway. If they are worried about the long term commitment, they can just announce a short-term support cycle for the 1.21. And even better - drop support for the old 1.20 in due time.

It just does not make sense to me. If I already have the code (1.21) , why not release it? It's not like they are legally required to provide support for it for the next 10 years.

If I were an Xorg developer, I'd much rather support the newer codebase than the old one, however messy it may be.

[JackLilhammers]

Leprechaunius

While I don't think it would that big of a deal to name a release as v1.21, I don't think it's necessary either.
That said, it's not like v1.21 would have a code base newer than v1.20. It's the same stuff

[smitty3268]

But they are already maintaining the 1.20 releases anyway. If they are worried about the long term commitment, they can just announce a short-term support cycle for the 1.21. And even better - drop support for the old 1.20 in due time.

It just does not make sense to me. If I already have the code (1.21) , why not release it? It's not like they are legally required to provide support for it for the next 10 years.

If I were an Xorg developer, I'd much rather support the newer codebase than the old one, however messy it may be.

They only support 1.20 by fixing bugs, though. If they release 1.21 that will contain new features/code that will have additional bugs to work through.

And while they may not personally have a legal obligation to provide support, those devs are all working for companies like Red Hat that do provide legal support agreements to their customers. If Red Hat wasn't paying them to work on X, they wouldn't be there at all. And Red Hat is just going to look bad if there's a new version of X out there that they don't pick up for their customers.

Besides, if they're going to push out an unsupported release, it's not clear how that's actually any better. People who are ok with using unsupported releases can already just compile the current code from git and have the same experience.