David wrote: > There is a minor update for libxau located upstream, as well > > as libXScreenSaver, which I suppose we should include. I didn't touch > > libXScreenSaver previously because I wasn't sure how best to manage it > > in regards to libxss. Keep the old name? Update to the new? > > The minor updates are fine, although they don't really seem to be > worthwhile iirc, since they basically just allow you to run lint during > builds, which isn't interesting to us. If you want to do the update though, > go for it.
I'd like to do it for aesthetic purity, so we can say etch really does contain X11R7.1 without having to cough about thte ifs and buts. > As for xss, I say we leave the package name as it is for etch and then fix > it later. Changing the package name this late in the game doesn't really > buy us anything interesting. I'd be happy to have it be one of those > instant changes we make once etch is out though. OK, we'll keep it as libxss for now then. > > I'm interested in packaging the developmental i810 (intel) modesetting > > branch. Alan is keen for people to test it. I'd think to call the new > > package xserver-xorg-video-intel, since I think X.org upstream will be > > calling it "intel" once it's finally released. I'd put lots of "this > > driver is a development snapshot, only use it if you really mean it" > > warnings into the description. > > I'm not sure renaming the driver is a good move right now. I don't want to > jump the gun on upstream. I also don't want people who will inevitably fail > to read the warning to install it thinking that it's the only intel video > driver when they should be using the i810 package. Admittedly, > xserver-xorg-video-i810-modesetting is a mouthful, so if there's a > compromise in there somewhere that'd probably be ideal. Ah I see. Because the upstream module was renamed "xf86-video-intel", I had assumed they were renaming the new driver "intel". But looking inside the modesetting branch I see the driver is still called "i810". So you're right, xserver-xorg-video-i810-modesetting makes more sense in that case, until upstream fully renames it. Unless I missed something, this means i810-modesetting will have to conflict with (and replace) i810, since it generates the same i810_drv.so (rather than intel_drv.so which is what I had assumed it was doing). A pity, since this makes it a little harder to test and compare the two side by side. Drew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
