On Monday, May 09, 2011 12:25:18 PM Matt Turner wrote: > 2011/4/29 Matt Turner <[email protected]>: > > 2011/3/9 Alexis Ballier <[email protected]>: > >> As for the reasons: "its the fdo version + a debian/patches dir with, > >> heh, some fixes and improvements I'm using..." > > > > So, the SDS version is simply the freedesktop version with a few > > patches on top? So, the freedesktop version is actually... upstream? > > > > We patch plenty of things in Gentoo. Why are we depending on SDS to do > > that for us? > > > > Matt > > So...? Why are we shipping this version when it seems to be just the > upstream version + patches? People on the X11 team already have commit > access to freedesktop, and by extension, libva, so if the patches are > reasonable we could just commit them ourselves. Why are we bothering > with this SDS version?
maybe your answer is in the readme :) http://www.splitted-desktop.com/~gbeauchesne/libva/patches/000_README some of them are needed, some of them are useful, some we could certainly drop. If the most important patches could go upstream then, again, I'm all for going to fdo, but I'm not that enthusiastic about it (e.g. fdo git still installs the test programs, they make """releases""" that don't even build, etc...). If it's for maintaining my own patchset with the sds patches then I prefer using sds directly :) We could start excluding some sds patches to stop applying them, bringing us closer to fdo though, it's just I don't see the need. Feel free to propose me somes to drop with justifications ;) > > You weren't kidding about not being on IRC. !seen aballier says 7 months > ago. Heh ;) A.
