Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Most Drivers Won't Be Merged Into X Server 1.10

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • phoronix
    started a topic Most Drivers Won't Be Merged Into X Server 1.10

    Most Drivers Won't Be Merged Into X Server 1.10

    Phoronix: Most Drivers Won't Be Merged Into X Server 1.10

    The last talk of the 2010 X.Org Developers' Summit was regarding X.Org Server 1.10. The good news is that nearly every X.Org graphics driver will not be merged back into the xorg-server repository...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODYxNw

  • Silent Storm
    replied
    Originally posted by FunkyRider View Post
    The only X display drivers the world cares, are NV, ATI and Intel. As long as those drivers aren't being integrated into the X Server, I have nothing to complain.
    Servers and embedded systems in the world cares about other drivers too.

    Leave a comment:


  • FunkyRider
    replied
    The only X display drivers the world cares, are NV, ATI and Intel. As long as those drivers aren't being integrated into the X Server, I have nothing to complain.

    Leave a comment:


  • plonoma
    replied
    Very relieved to hear that graphics drivers are not going to be merged into the X.org server. Hopefully the input drivers could be modularized the same way.

    The 1.10 release looks like a solid release with many wanted improvements.
    Nice to see libxkb surfacing.

    Leave a comment:


  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by brouhaha View Post
    Sure, and the easy fix is for them to start.

    I've never worked on a project where there were separately built modules that depended on my code, yet it was considered acceptable for me to make ABI changes without verifying that those modules built, or at least that the person responsible for those modules was made aware of the issue.

    If no one is willing to do it manually, they certainly could use something like Tinderbox to do it. This isn't rocket science.
    I do think something like Tinderbox could be good for this.

    Relying on individual developers to "do the right thing" will work sometimes, but sooner or later it will fail.

    Leave a comment:


  • brouhaha
    replied
    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
    Sure, the point is that no one ever does that.
    Sure, and the easy fix is for them to start.

    I've never worked on a project where there were separately built modules that depended on my code, yet it was considered acceptable for me to make ABI changes without verifying that those modules built, or at least that the person responsible for those modules was made aware of the issue.

    If no one is willing to do it manually, they certainly could use something like Tinderbox to do it. This isn't rocket science.

    Leave a comment:


  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by brouhaha View Post
    I don't understand why anyone thinks that merging will help track ABI breakage; that can be done by building the server AND at least one modular driver, such as the dummy DDX driver.
    Sure, the point is that no one ever does that.

    Leave a comment:


  • brouhaha
    replied
    The dummy DDX driver should remain separate rather than being merged, exactly so that it can serve as an example of how to write a modular driver.

    I don't understand why anyone thinks that merging will help track ABI breakage; that can be done by building the server AND at least one modular driver, such as the dummy DDX driver. OF course, better testing for ABI breakage would result from building and testing a real driver.

    Leave a comment:


  • Plombo
    replied
    This isn't a surprise by any means, but it's nonetheless relieving to know that the video drivers won't be merged into the server.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X