On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 08:54:59PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Quoting "Robert Millan [ackstorm]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 09:13:37AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: > >> > >>> Any news on this? The patch works pretty well for me. Is etch > >>going to release > >>> with 1.1, or with 1.0 ? If 1.0 is being released it better not be > >>unpatched.. > >> > >>The patch is applied to xserver 1.1.1. > > > >xserver 1.1.1 is in experimental only. This usualy means it isn't > >intended to > >make it into the upcoming release. If this is so, the one in sid needs > >patching. Otherwise, why not uploading to sid directly? > > Not so, experimental is simply for packages which we are not yet ready to > load > into unstable. That's unrelated to whether or not we intend it for etch. > > In this case there are a handful of ABI transitions complicating the > upgrade, so > we put it into experimental first to increase our assurance that the upgrade > held together satisfactorily.
Ok.. I don't mind either way as long as the version we release supports my hardware :) > >Sorry, I don't know. I didn't write the patch, I can only confirm it > >solved the > >problem in my hardware. But if the code is really disabled, it's > >pointless to > >include that hunk of course :) > > Yeah, sorry Robert, I didn't mean this question to you personally but > to anyone > who might happen to know. David Airlie would be the one to ask > directly, since > it seems to be his patch. But it's not that big a deal to bother him over :) Agreed. -- Robert Millan ACK STORM, S.L. - http://www.ackstorm.es -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]