On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Julien Cristau wrote: Hi Julien,
I just looked at your diff.gz, and here are some comments: - the serverabiver file doesn't seem to be used anywhere (at least on a quick grep in the drivers I didn't find anything), do we need to keep it?
I have no idea, really :)
- when you sync from debian, it seems that the old ubuntu changelog entries are removed, which means the explanation for your patches disappear, if they're not in the patch header; it makes it difficult to know what the patches are supposed to fix (patch 102, eg)
Yes, that was unfortunate.. I can put the changelog in there so you can have a look. I'll do a proper merge for the "final" version ;)
Patches we don't seem to have: * 102_ubuntu_sharevts_load_cpu.patch * 110_fedora_no_move_damage.patch * 104_fedora_init_origins_fix.patch * 106_ubuntu_fpic_libxf86config.patch (don't know what this is supposed to do, libxf86config is a static lib afaics, it shouldn't need -fPIC) * 107_fedora_dont_backfill_bg_none.patch * 108_fedora_gl_include_inferiors.patch * 114_fedora_no_composite_in_xnest.patch * 120_fedora_disable_offscreen_pixmaps.diff * 121_only_switch_vt_when_active.diff * 123_no_composite_for_xvfb_run.patch (adds -extension Composite to XVFBARGS in debian/local/xvfb-run, we may want to include that?)
I didn't do much research if some of those are obsolete, they just apply cleanly after a refresh..
Does anyone know the status of these patches wrt upstream inclusion? Patch 114 explicitely says it's a "terrible hack", so that one probably doesn't qualify :)
heh, after googling a bit I found it: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg-commit/2006-August/008627.html (it's funny how many hits you get with "XXX terrible hack" :) t -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
