I am reposting this reply to include the Debian XSF list as suggested by Cyril:
Cyril Brulebois <kibi <at> debian.org> writes: > 1. http://pkg-xorg.alioth.debian.org/reference/squeeze-backports.html I understand that the prospect of backporting more the 50 source packages is a large burden on the XSF team, but I would encourage the team to revisit the decision not to backport all of Xorg. There are couple of reasons why backporting the entire stack is preferable. 1. In general people use backports to obtain features not available in the stable release of a package. There are features in newer versions of the xorg server which would be valuable in stable. - For example xorg server 1.8 has 'Coordinate Transformation Matrix' support which is necessary when using a touchscreen or tablet mouse with more than one screen. - http://www.x.org/wiki/XInputCoordinateTransformationMatrixUsage 2. Cobbling together a different version creates another version to support that is different than the one in testing or unstable. This increases the XSF teams maintenance burden as well as making it more difficult for the user to understand what version they are using or how to file bugs against upstream. 3. Related to (2) the average user has little understanding of the xorg components. They just want to grab the latest version and see if it fixes their problem or has the feature they were missing. Backporting all of xorg satisfies this use case. Thanks, Jesse W. Hathaway -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
