Re: [Bug 34004] New Account Request
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:17:50AM +, Daniel Stone wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 08:19:09AM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 07:56:04AM +0100, Eirik Byrkjeflot Anonsen wrote: On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 03:02:58PM +, Daniel Stone wrote: Yes. Tollef's opinion was that quitting was a copout and that I should instead go fix some sitewranglers bugs instead. Until the next time you're drunk, i'm sure. [...] (If you do choose to make a case, take the time to make sure your arguments are well thought out before posting. Remember, your arguments will have to sound convincing to a large number of people on this list, or you may as well not bother.) All arguments were made, extensively, before. Except maybe for one: The claimed reason for reinstating daniels now is that apparently nobody else wants to take on an admin role at fd.o. I would like to know which known dependable community members were approached for such roles before this decision here was taken. No-one has claimed that, except for you. What Tollef said is that as I'd harmed (the perception of) fd.o, rather than just quitting and getting to walk away, I should instead help out with fd.o admin tasks as penance: his view was that after causing some damage, I should help improve things. And as this bears out: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/sitewranglers/2011-February/date.html#7255 I've been doing just that. If any of this is still unclear, please let me know and I can try to better explain it. Was it considered, at any point in this process, to actually get more (actually trusted) people in to do fd.o administration? I doubt it, and your answer seems to confirm it. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Bug 34004] New Account Request
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:47:25AM +, Daniel Stone wrote: If you actually wanted to find out, you could go ask someone, First the following question needs to be answered: who owns (not pw0wn, we found that out already) these machines, who is paying for their power/net? The X.org Foundation? Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Bug 34004] New Account Request
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 02:44:05PM +, Daniel Stone wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 03:02:56PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:47:25AM +, Daniel Stone wrote: If you actually wanted to find out, you could go ask someone, First the following question needs to be answered: who owns (not pw0wn, we found that out already) these machines, who is paying for their power/net? The X.org Foundation? freedesktop.org owns the *.fd.o machines, which have been paid for by donations from generous sponsors (including Google and Intel), and the hosting is provided free of charge by the Computer Science department at Portland State University. The three Sun machines (expo.x.org and friends) at MIT were donated by Sun to MIT (or something to that effect - the end result is that we can't really move them), and the hosting bill is paid for by the X.Org Foundation. Most of this has been discussed in past Foundation board meetings. So nobody really owns them, noone is accountable for them, and noone is really accountable for the software projects on them? Seems like this explains quite a lot of the admin happenings, both current and past. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Bug 34004] New Account Request
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 04:01:01PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 02:44:05PM +, Daniel Stone wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 03:02:56PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:47:25AM +, Daniel Stone wrote: If you actually wanted to find out, you could go ask someone, First the following question needs to be answered: who owns (not pw0wn, we found that out already) these machines, who is paying for their power/net? The X.org Foundation? freedesktop.org owns the *.fd.o machines, which have been paid for by donations from generous sponsors (including Google and Intel), and the hosting is provided free of charge by the Computer Science department at Portland State University. The three Sun machines (expo.x.org and friends) at MIT were donated by Sun to MIT (or something to that effect - the end result is that we can't really move them), and the hosting bill is paid for by the X.Org Foundation. Most of this has been discussed in past Foundation board meetings. So nobody really owns them, noone is accountable for them, and noone is really accountable for the software projects on them? Seems like this explains quite a lot of the admin happenings, both current and past. Luc Verhaegen. It seems that a useful and representative X.org board is needed, and that their primary responsibility should be the funding and maintenance of dependable infrastructure for the free software projects on both x.org and fd.o. Hey, what do you know, there are elections coming up. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Bug 34004] New Account Request
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 07:25:21AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: On 02/10/11 07:07 AM, Luc Verhaegen wrote: It seems that a useful and representative X.org board is needed, and that their primary responsibility should be the funding and maintenance of dependable infrastructure for the free software projects on both x.org and fd.o. Hey, what do you know, there are elections coming up. Elections in which it was difficult to find enough people willing to put in the time and deal with crap like this to fill a full slate of candidates for the available seats. (The initial deadline was extended when there were only two candidates for 4 seats.) I don't see the X.Org board trying to stage a coup and take over freedesktop.org though, no matter who gets elected. There's a separate organization for that, and we don't have the legal right to take their property away no matter what we think about how they're managing it. So it is better to leave this current situation as is, and have a major part of the infrastructure that X.org and others depend on what i honestly cannot describe as a organization? Luc Verhaegen ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Bug 34004] New Account Request
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:39:54AM -0800, Corbin Simpson wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Luc Verhaegen l...@skynet.be wrote: So it is better to leave this current situation as is, and have a major part of the infrastructure that X.org and others depend on what i honestly cannot describe as a organization? Well, after the outage a few years ago, we jokingly talked about moving fd.o's stuff down to Corvallis, OR, where the Open Source Lab could keep a closer eye on the machines. The ultimate reason for not going down that route was that Portland was a better place as far as having people who were actually involved with FreeDesktop nearby in case of emergency. This is starting to sound like the kind of thing that should definitely involve the rest of the fd.o members. If you have serious concerns about the quality of hosting that fd.o's property is receiving, then not just X.org, but all fd.o members need to be in this discussion. ~ C. Isn't libreoffice using fd.o? Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Bug 34004] New Account Request
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 06:36:32AM -0800, bugzilla-dae...@freedesktop.org wrote: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34004 Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #4 from Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org 2011-02-09 06:36:31 PST --- done Root access restored, i presume? Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
FOSDEM 2011.
As you all know, there is no DevRoom this year, partly due to lack of participation last year (and the FOSDEM organisers weariness of repeat this year), and a general lack of interest this year. This is of course no reason to not go visit probably the biggest gathering of free software developers and advanced users in the world. And I, and at least Egbert Eich, will be there this year as well. For those who are visiting FOSDEM, and who want to meet up on friday evening: I suggest something similar like the years before: Friday, 19:00+, Le Paon, Grand Place, Brussels. Let me know that you're coming (email, irc, phone), so i can forewarn the staff, my phonenumber still is the same (german) one. They can handle a surge, but i would like to know whether we should just get a table for a handful of people or if we need to grab a whole floor like last year. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Who actually does have root? [was Re: Respository ...]
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 06:40:54PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: We could probably better define this sort of things, again fd.o has been a pretty haphazard setup based on volunteer time and effort, but again hopefully we can get some escalation procedures in place that are less public. Dave. In fact, more visibility is what is needed, not less! Just like with the fundamental change that happened with the X.org board earlier this year: we need to know who is doing what, before we can trust it. In my very first email i asked who all had root access to the fd.o machines. I haven't got an answer to that yet. From irc, the day after this broke out, i saw that ajax and daniels suspended their own fd.o root accounts, but keep their x.org accounts? Why only fd.o and not X.org? Why only suspension and not taking away this access? Is this really how people want to run a free software project? Where only political affiliation means that your code is safe? And WTF, searching through my irc log, i dug up this: --- Day changed Fri Nov 19 2010 ... 04:13 alanc someone leave a git repo writable by too many people? http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-radeonhd/commit/?h=spigot 04:14 cjb looks like a perfectly normal ajax commit to me 04:14 alanc except he usually signs his as ajax, not r...@jerkcity.com 04:15 cjb was kidding :) 04:15 alanc not that I'm disagreeing with the new autogen.sh there, given it was the only commit in the last 6 months, but it would be more useful on master 04:17 mjg59 I'm not sure that that branch has always been there WTF? Alan, why did you not act on this? Why didn't you mail adm...@fd.o? Why are you spending your time bashing me for blowing this open, and not talking to the admins, while all you did was 1) put this on irc 2) shrug and walk away. Do you find this acceptable behaviour for the secretary of the X.org board? Since i am pasting irclog, attached is more irc log, showing several people at their best (including me). Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Who actually does have root? [was Re: Respository ...]
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 10:01:20PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote: On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 06:40:54PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: We could probably better define this sort of things, again fd.o has been a pretty haphazard setup based on volunteer time and effort, but again hopefully we can get some escalation procedures in place that are less public. Dave. In fact, more visibility is what is needed, not less! Just like with the fundamental change that happened with the X.org board earlier this year: we need to know who is doing what, before we can trust it. In my very first email i asked who all had root access to the fd.o machines. I haven't got an answer to that yet. From irc, the day after this broke out, i saw that ajax and daniels suspended their own fd.o root accounts, but keep their x.org accounts? Why only fd.o and not X.org? Why only suspension and not taking away this access? Is this really how people want to run a free software project? Where only political affiliation means that your code is safe? And WTF, searching through my irc log, i dug up this: --- Day changed Fri Nov 19 2010 ... 04:13 alanc someone leave a git repo writable by too many people? http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-radeonhd/commit/?h=spigot 04:14 cjb looks like a perfectly normal ajax commit to me 04:14 alanc except he usually signs his as ajax, not r...@jerkcity.com 04:15 cjb was kidding :) 04:15 alanc not that I'm disagreeing with the new autogen.sh there, given it was the only commit in the last 6 months, but it would be more useful on master 04:17 mjg59 I'm not sure that that branch has always been there WTF? Alan, why did you not act on this? Why didn't you mail adm...@fd.o? Why are you spending your time bashing me for blowing this open, and not talking to the admins, while all you did was 1) put this on irc 2) shrug and walk away. Do you find this acceptable behaviour for the secretary of the X.org board? Since i am pasting irclog, attached is more irc log, showing several people at their best (including me). Luc Verhaegen. Now with an actual log attached. Luc Verhaegen --- Day changed Tue Nov 23 2010 before the email ... 13:02 libv ok, which wanker pulled this: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-radeonhd/commit/?h=spigot 13:03 arekm lol 13:04 scarabeus i likes 13:04 libv well, either there's some idiot with rather severe fd.o access 13:04 libv or there is a security issue 13:07 libv i would rather expect that those people capable of doing this, would be above this ... And now after: ... 16:04 mattst88 oh man, people out to get libv again 16:06 libv mattst88: heh. 16:06 libv mattst88: would you really trust your code to fd.o when you know that those with root access pull such stunts? 16:07 mattst88 I suppose that it's more of a prank than anything serious. 16:07 libv mattst88: this is definitely not a prank 16:07 mjg59 Somebody used an inappropriate process to mark an unmaintained project as deprecated 16:07 mjg59 Which is worthy of criticism, but 16:07 libv mjg59: and the difference is... marketing... right? 16:07 mjg59 I'm not trying to justify the way it was done 16:08 mattst88 of course it is a prank, they made a silly branch in the repository. They didn't delete code. (Unless I'm missing something) 16:08 ajax it's not like git has securty anyway 16:08 ajax forging COMMITTER_EMAIL is trivial 16:08 libv mattst88: how would you have root do this to your repos? 16:08 libv like to even 16:08 tmzt_dg2root but you need ssh though don't you? 16:08 tmzt_dg2root so it has to be somebody 'trusted' 16:09 mattst88 libv, I wouldn't, no doubt. I'm not justifying it. 16:09 mjg59 libv: If a project is unmaintained then leaving it buildable rather than marking it as deprecated is irresponsible 16:09 libv mjg59: radeonhd hasn't been part of the release for two or more years now 16:09 libv mjg59: remember the big flame war with amongst others, you, me and daniels 16:10 tmzt_dg2root it's still the only non atom ati code? or is that avivo 16:10 mjg59 libv: Yet it's still in the repo and people keep building it and getting confused 16:10 libv heh, avivo is still listed as part of ohloh 16:10 libv mjg59: mshopf make some updates to it in may 16:10 mjg59 libv: So it's unmaintained 16:10 libv mjg59: but this does not take away from the core fact 16:11 libv mjg59: so stop diverting from that. 16:11 mjg59 I refer you to my previous statement 16:11 mjg59 I don't think there's any reasonable justification for the way it was done 16:11 * mattst88 looks at what he's started, and is sad 16:12 tmzt_dg2root so, serious question, is there a way to set CC to build.sh so I don't have to patch it? 16:12 libv this is not some banal prank, this is a serious breach of trust in the whole of fd.o 16:13 mattst88 I wonder how long it'll be until phoronix has an article up. 16:13 ajax
Re: Who actually does have root? [was Re: Respository ...]
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 07:39:48AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 7:01 AM, Luc Verhaegen l...@skynet.be wrote: On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 06:40:54PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: We could probably better define this sort of things, again fd.o has been a pretty haphazard setup based on volunteer time and effort, but again hopefully we can get some escalation procedures in place that are less public. Dave. In fact, more visibility is what is needed, not less! Just like with the fundamental change that happened with the X.org board earlier this year: we need to know who is doing what, before we can trust it. In my very first email i asked who all had root access to the fd.o machines. I haven't got an answer to that yet. ssh annarchy.freedesktop.org cat /etc/passwd | grep root Pretty much gives you the list of fd.o admins to anyone who has access, again X.org isn't the only project hosted on fd.o, so there are admins from other projects who have root. Dave. For annarchy: Daniel Stone Keith Packard Carl Worth Eric Anholt Thomas Vander Stichele Adam Jackson Rob McQueen Benjamin Close Behdad Esfahbod Tollef Fog Heen Is this the same list for all fd.o machines? What about gabe, which is another machine that this change could've happened from as well. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Who actually does have root? [was Re: Respository ...]
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 08:15:07AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: oops daughter hit send, I don't know of any admins that are different across machines. And no it couldn't have been done on gabe, only on kemper actually but generally users don't have access to kemper. Dave. Hehe! Finally, proof that i am not a donkey :) I made the gabe/kemper mistake last week in privmsg as well (dig corrected me then). Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Respository vandalism by r...@...fd.o
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 06:01:19PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Luc Verhaegen l...@skynet.be wrote: On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 04:36:17PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Luc Verhaegen l...@skynet.be wrote: See, this was exactly the problem here. It _was_ a freedesktop admin. And it was pretty clear that it was that from the onset too. Mailing fd.o admins, even if i could've dug up an email address in the split second that i wrote the email (heck, i even mistyped repository), was not the right course of action. So you mailed 2 mailing lists consisting of 2-300 people who could do nothing about it? nice work. Dave. Heh. I already wasted quite some time on the actions of one of your colleagues, i guess i can waste some more time on yours. Stop the counter-attack dave, it's far too obvious what you are doing here. Paranoid much? still seeing faces in the dark? Like really if you can't answer a simple question about why you mailed 200 people who couldn't do any investigation of the issue without going off the deep end I have to wonder. Dave. Not this again. It is getting rather old, and especially in light of recent events, it seems rather out of place too. Stop it, it's ridiculous. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Respository vandalism by r...@...fd.o
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 06:33:19PM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: On 24/11/10 18:00 , Eirik Byrkjeflot Anonsen wrote: 1. What systems do we have in place that enables us to detect when a trusted admin acts in bad judgement or with evil intent? What is the probability that such actions will be noticed? Can we do anything to increase this probability? 2. What systems do we have in place that enables us to detect evil commits once they actually make their way into the repository? What is the probability that they will be noticed? Can we do anything to increase this probability? git is designed to not be screwed with easily, so the chance of bad commits being detected is quite high. for well-maintained repositories, we tend to notice quite quickly. I'm sure keith would notice whenever he can't push to xserver because no-one else is supposed to commit to it. The same is true for other repositories, so the best safeguard here is active maintainership. 3. When incidents are detected (break-ins, abuse of admin rights, evil commits, what have you...), what processes are in place to deal with this? What information is published, and in which fora, and when? What investigations are performed, and what actions are carried out as a result of such investigations? Where are these processes documented? I think in this particular case, a large number of insiders likely assumed a prank before it was called out. There is a history of disagreements between some of the X.Org developers and Luc and the radeonhd project, so having this happen to this particular repository is not that surprising after all (Note, this does not excuse the action, merely explain some of the reactions). I'd have been more worried if that had happened to e.g. the xserver repo. I don't think we have any official processes right now and certainly none documented. Sending emails to the list to raise awareness is a good approach IMO and Luc's first few emails were informative. The later part of the thread somewhat lost usefulness when it descended to the usual fights, conspiracy theories and name-calling. Staying on-topic should be an essential part of any official process... Conspiracy theories? Come on man, Daniel Stone and Adam Jackson, known, over the years, for liking radeonhd, sit down, after most likely some alcohol and maybe even other substances, and pull this. According to irc, Adam, who had root access himself, used Daniel his account to do this, in a targetted and efficient manner. If i remember the timestamps right, the update script was moved back within 5 minutes of the commit. Then 3 weeks ensued where nothing happened, where Adam and Daniel could've fixed their spur of the moment mistake, without anyone noticing, but clearly, they did not come back on their steps. It was a completely unnecessary event, and it only serves to show how certain projects, not suited to a certain group are being treated. And two former X.org board, two people who joined the X.org fork from xfree86 very early on, but who, as far as i can tell, were little or not involved with xfree86 at the time, and who got these access rights from very early on too, abused their power to trash existing but unmaintained free software project. Now, of course everyone ties this in with my history with X.org, from unichrome, to modesetting, to radeonhd, to fosdem, to graphics driver stacks. But you also might want to consider that i was at a hardware vendor two weeks ago, and i had to listen to their main engineer calling contributing directly to X a waste of time, and that they rather fix the versions their customers ship, and hand the patches to their customers directly, never bothering to submit to X directly. They rather implement stuff, hand it to their customers, as they know that their code will not be accepted, and that it will be reinvented a few weeks or months later. Then they go and use the reimplementation afterwards, and save a lot of manpower and frustration in the process. Despite all my personal feelings about free software and the likes, I had absolutely nothing to counter, anything i could even try to throw up against that would either be completely irrelevant and meek, or a lie. _This_ is how the world works with an X.org that works like that. Someone just mailed it i find it surprising that the person exposing the evildoing is getting more flack than the person(s) doing it. Luc Verhaegen ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Respository vandalism by r...@...fd.o
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:18:20AM +, Alan Cox wrote: He ensured the problem was noticed, and that it got out to people who depend upon the repository being secure and properly managed. In this case that turns out to have ensured the offender admitted to something silly but if it had been a more serious attack it would also have ensured people relying on the repository knew what was going on. Security through bad mouthing the messenger for raising the issue is normally reserved for government ministers, IMHO it has no place here. With all things said and done, it looks like mailing just fd.o admins was not the best of options here. Two of the fd.o admins were responsible for this :( Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Respository vandalism by r...@...fd.o
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 08:27:12PM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: On 24/11/10 19:38 , Luc Verhaegen wrote: Conspiracy theories? I did not imply that you were the one starting with the conspiracy theories, and I think strictly speaking there was no name-calling in that thread either so I have overshot the target and I apologise. Correct the above to the usual fights, that at least is obvious. Anyway, the best approach to solving issues like this is to go to the list and say hey guys, this isn't funny, it raises trust issues when that happens. Which is exactly what your first email did, and the first subsequent ones. The thread then went haywire quickly, initiated by a number of people, and that is unnecessary. At this point we have found the guilty parties, we have a publicly expressed regret, the consequences of removed root access, and we should move on to the more on-topic questions Eirik raised. If you want to raise the issue of how the radeonhd project was treated or the methods of said hardware vendor, I suggest starting a new thread because I don't think this one will go anywhere useful at this point. Cheers, Peter It is highly related though, the stunt pulled here just underlines the situation the project is in for anyone not belonging to the right crowd, and that directly affects the future of X.org. Heck, part of the reason why so many go crazy over any X replacement project can be attributed to this. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Respository vandalism by r...@...fd.o
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:08:18AM -0500, Matt Turner wrote: From the Phoronix forums, you say Yeah, this was most definitely not a simple prank, as some people like to claim. What are you suggesting it was? Do you really find this a simple prank? Or do you find this a flagrant abuse of power and a severe breach of trust that damages the whole of fd.o and x.org? Why do i find myself having to explain this still, i would've expected this was clear by now. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Respository vandalism by r...@...fd.o
Radeonhd repo: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-radeonhd/commit/?h=spigot author SPIGOT r...@jerkcity.com 2010-11-02 04:21:14 (GMT) committer SPIGOT r...@jerkcity.com 2010-11-02 04:21:14 (GMT) commit 231683e2f111bb064125f64f2da797d744cde7fa (patch) ... PERHAPS BONGHITS WILL FIX MY MAKEFILE Signed-off-by: SPIGOT r...@jerkcity.com Very funny, but the person responsible forgot that maybe, this puts the whole trust in anything on fd.o at risk. A look at the repo itself shows: ...xf86-video-radeonhd/objects$ ls -al 23/1683e2f111bb064125f64f2da797d744cde7fa -r--r--r-- 1 root xorg 205 2010-11-01 21:22 23/1683e2f111bb064125f64f2da797d744cde7fa This while others clearly show: ...xf86-video-radeonhd/objects$ ls -al 00/8cf170fe2f7d7c52bb691f77d2199a2e21f9d6 -r--r--r-- 1 mhopf xorg 596 2010-05-12 07:34 00/8cf170fe2f7d7c52bb691f77d2199a2e21f9d6 So, who has root access to annarchy or any other of the servers, and who thought this would be funny, and who deserves to lose his access right here, right now? Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Respository vandalism by r...@...fd.o
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 01:32:30PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote: Radeonhd repo: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-radeonhd/commit/?h=spigot authorSPIGOT r...@jerkcity.com 2010-11-02 04:21:14 (GMT) committer SPIGOT r...@jerkcity.com 2010-11-02 04:21:14 (GMT) commit231683e2f111bb064125f64f2da797d744cde7fa (patch) ... PERHAPS BONGHITS WILL FIX MY MAKEFILE Signed-off-by: SPIGOT r...@jerkcity.com Very funny, but the person responsible forgot that maybe, this puts the whole trust in anything on fd.o at risk. A look at the repo itself shows: ...xf86-video-radeonhd/objects$ ls -al 23/1683e2f111bb064125f64f2da797d744cde7fa -r--r--r-- 1 root xorg 205 2010-11-01 21:22 23/1683e2f111bb064125f64f2da797d744cde7fa This while others clearly show: ...xf86-video-radeonhd/objects$ ls -al 00/8cf170fe2f7d7c52bb691f77d2199a2e21f9d6 -r--r--r-- 1 mhopf xorg 596 2010-05-12 07:34 00/8cf170fe2f7d7c52bb691f77d2199a2e21f9d6 So, who has root access to annarchy or any other of the servers, and who thought this would be funny, and who deserves to lose his access right here, right now? Luc Verhaegen. It is clear that this is not a normal security breach, as this commit is fully in line with the naming scheme used by fd.o. Plus, given the history of radeonhd, combined with who i think have root access, makes it seem quite likely that this was simply one of the people with regular root access. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Respository vandalism by r...@...fd.o
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 01:47:19PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote: On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 01:32:30PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote: Radeonhd repo: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-radeonhd/commit/?h=spigot author SPIGOT r...@jerkcity.com 2010-11-02 04:21:14 (GMT) committer SPIGOT r...@jerkcity.com 2010-11-02 04:21:14 (GMT) commit 231683e2f111bb064125f64f2da797d744cde7fa (patch) ... PERHAPS BONGHITS WILL FIX MY MAKEFILE Signed-off-by: SPIGOT r...@jerkcity.com Very funny, but the person responsible forgot that maybe, this puts the whole trust in anything on fd.o at risk. A look at the repo itself shows: ...xf86-video-radeonhd/objects$ ls -al 23/1683e2f111bb064125f64f2da797d744cde7fa -r--r--r-- 1 root xorg 205 2010-11-01 21:22 23/1683e2f111bb064125f64f2da797d744cde7fa This while others clearly show: ...xf86-video-radeonhd/objects$ ls -al 00/8cf170fe2f7d7c52bb691f77d2199a2e21f9d6 -r--r--r-- 1 mhopf xorg 596 2010-05-12 07:34 00/8cf170fe2f7d7c52bb691f77d2199a2e21f9d6 So, who has root access to annarchy or any other of the servers, and who thought this would be funny, and who deserves to lose his access right here, right now? Luc Verhaegen. It is clear that this is not a normal security breach, as this commit is fully in line with the naming scheme used by fd.o. Plus, given the history of radeonhd, combined with who i think have root access, makes it seem quite likely that this was simply one of the people with regular root access. Luc Verhaegen. Also, the hooks/update script was not run, as that would've sent an email to the radeonhd mailing list, the update hook was restored afterwards it seems: ...xf86-video-radeonhd/hooks$ ls -al total 36 drwxrwsr-x 2 keithp xorg 4096 2010-11-04 15:01 . drwxrwsr-x 8 eich xorg 4096 2009-12-09 06:09 .. -rw-rw-r-- 1 keithp xorg 426 2007-09-17 11:09 applypatch-msg -rw-rw-r-- 1 keithp xorg 528 2007-09-17 11:09 commit-msg -rw-rw-r-- 1 keithp xorg 152 2007-09-17 11:09 post-commit -rwxrwxr-x 1 keithp xorg 207 2007-09-17 11:09 post-update -rw-rw-r-- 1 keithp xorg 373 2007-09-17 11:09 pre-applypatch -rw-rw-r-- 1 keithp xorg 1616 2007-09-17 11:09 pre-commit -rwxrwxr-x 1 keithp xorg 3755 2010-11-01 21:26 update This is not random at all. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Respository vandalism by r...@...fd.o
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:25:33AM -0500, Gaetan Nadon wrote: On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 13:57 +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote: It is clear that this is not a normal security breach, as this commit is fully in line with the naming scheme used by fd.o. Plus, given the history of radeonhd, combined with who i think have root access, makes it seem quite likely that this was simply one of the people with regular root access. I had noticed this appalling commit, looked around and came to the same conclusion. I had also received an e-mail alerting me about this commit. This is not a good use of our time. The commit should actually be removed from the repository, or at least reverted, to save other people from wasting time on this. Their wiki states that radeonhd is deprecated, which is fine, but that does not mean it should be crippled. That would be the honorable thing to do for the author of this commit. I make mistakes, people tell me nicely, I fix them and life goes on. Gaetan Still, would you really want to trust your code to freedesktop.org after this, knowing that there's someone with root access pulling stunts like this? Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Respository vandalism by r...@...fd.o
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 08:32:10AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: Gaetan Nadon wrote: On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 13:57 +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote: It is clear that this is not a normal security breach, as this commit is fully in line with the naming scheme used by fd.o. Plus, given the history of radeonhd, combined with who i think have root access, makes it seem quite likely that this was simply one of the people with regular root access. I had noticed this appalling commit, looked around and came to the same conclusion. I had also received an e-mail alerting me about this commit. This is not a good use of our time. The commit should actually be removed from the repository, or at least reverted, to save other people from wasting time on this. Their wiki states that radeonhd is deprecated, which is fine, but that does not mean it should be crippled. It's on a separate branch, not master. (Doesn't mean it's right, just that it's not actually going to cripple anything or waste time for anyone who doesn't ask for it.) The last update on the radeonhd master branch is 6 months ago. Sure, it's a separate branch. Sure, you can easily remove the branch. But the base fact is: someone took advantage of his fd.o admin rights to do this. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Respository vandalism by r...@...fd.o
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 01:45:15AM +, Matt Turner wrote: On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Frans de Boer fr...@fransdb.nl wrote: Thanks Adam, Because of my unfamiliarity with the people involved with xorg, can anybody verify the claim Adam made? I can't verify it. But I had a pretty strong suspicion. :) If it was just a misplaced competition effort, I can continue to rely on the xorg code. It was a prank. I'm sure he didn't foresee people getting this anxious over it. Also, if it turns out to be a validated claim Adam made, accept it as is and continue. Hopefully Adam has learned his lesson. But also Freedesktop.org should have it's act together. Do check the access rights and allow only trusted persons root access. Hopefully Adam was NOT one of them they trusted explicitly and he has only access due to historical reasons. Adam was trusted, and is still trusted I'd say. Because it was a joke. He made a funny commit in a branch of a dead project that no one has even committed build fixes to since May. No one, especially Adam, is going to insert backdoors in the xserver or whatever it is you're thinking. The guy has 28 commits to the xserver alone since 1.9 was released on August 20. Matt This here is not a joke at all. Stop downplaying it. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Respository vandalism by r...@...fd.o
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 07:24:12PM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 13:32 +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote: Radeonhd repo: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-radeonhd/commit/?h=spigot author SPIGOT r...@jerkcity.com 2010-11-02 04:21:14 (GMT) committer SPIGOT r...@jerkcity.com 2010-11-02 04:21:14 (GMT) commit 231683e2f111bb064125f64f2da797d744cde7fa (patch) ... PERHAPS BONGHITS WILL FIX MY MAKEFILE Signed-off-by: SPIGOT r...@jerkcity.com Very funny, but the person responsible forgot that maybe, this puts the whole trust in anything on fd.o at risk. That was me. Serious lapse in judgement on my part. I pretty much did it to get a rise out of Luc; looks like I succeeded. But it's indefensible, and I apologize. I'm kind of in a bad place emotionally and I should know better than to act that out in public. I've disabled my root accounts on the fd.o machines. I don't trust me with them anymore either. - ajax I can't see why. You know tons of ways to trigger me, without compromising X.org or fd.o. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Respository vandalism by r...@...fd.o
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 03:40:49PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: Frans de Boer wrote: Just like to inquire whether the observed behavior was a real security breach - someone introducing (maybe over time) a backdoor or the like - or just sloppy behavior. In other words, can we still trust the xorg repositories or are they compromised in some way? People and companies depend on xorg functionality without backdoors or the like. At the first sign of xorg repositories being compromised, I have to pull the plug on systems relying on xorg functionality. Please make sure what really happened and then inform the community. this thread only give rise to fears without - so it seems - verified facts. Yes, the original poster's announcement to the list in general and directly to phoronix without notifying the developers or admins first seems to have been designed to do exactly that - raise fears without facts. Alan, You know that i've been with X.org for long enough to know what works and what gets muffled. The fact that you and others are continuously downplaying this proves that i took the right course of action. About mailing the board, well, the board is not exactly the fastest of organs, even though i feel that it has become better since the last elections and the crap throwing that happened before and after them. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Respository vandalism by r...@...fd.o
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 03:36:58PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: Alan Cox wrote: It's on a separate branch, not master. (Doesn't mean it's right, just that it's not actually going to cripple anything or waste time for anyone who doesn't ask for it.) And how many other un-noticed commits did this person make ? Until you know that you have to assume a complete compromise. Understood, but you'll also understand that's something we have to ask the freedesktop.org admins to investigate. Like most X.Org developers, I can't even login to the server hosting git other than with the restricted shell used for git pushes. See, this was exactly the problem here. It _was_ a freedesktop admin. And it was pretty clear that it was that from the onset too. Mailing fd.o admins, even if i could've dug up an email address in the split second that i wrote the email (heck, i even mistyped repository), was not the right course of action. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Respository vandalism by r...@...fd.o
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 04:36:17PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Luc Verhaegen l...@skynet.be wrote: See, this was exactly the problem here. It _was_ a freedesktop admin. And it was pretty clear that it was that from the onset too. Mailing fd.o admins, even if i could've dug up an email address in the split second that i wrote the email (heck, i even mistyped repository), was not the right course of action. So you mailed 2 mailing lists consisting of 2-300 people who could do nothing about it? nice work. Dave. Heh. I already wasted quite some time on the actions of one of your colleagues, i guess i can waste some more time on yours. Stop the counter-attack dave, it's far too obvious what you are doing here. The means to the end were perfectly justifiable under the circumstances, and this includes the years of experience i have with dealing with X.org community. This especially includes the experience of something as noble as the radeonhd driver project. Anything else than a similar course action would've meant that the issue would've been silenced to death. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: vbe-edid
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 08:14:19PM +0200, Kai-Uwe Behrmann wrote: Am 16.10.10, 17:48 +0200 schrieb Luc Verhaegen: When looking into #24348 i dug out the read-edid code to see what i needed to do to separately test the failing 0x4F01 call on vbe with vm86. I ended up rewriting the get-edid tool completely, it is tiny and its functionality is trivial anyway, and now we have: * actual readable C code, MIT license. * useful verbosity. * dumping of only the main edid block to mmm-.edid (just 128bytes as i am too lazy to do things properly). So, vbe-edid is available here: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~libv/vbe-edid Error: iopl failed: Operation not permitted It seems to need privileged rights. As root: Found VBE Version 3.0. VBE Call 0x15 failed! What are the requirements to run vbe-edid successfully? kind regards Kai-Uwe Behrmann No idea what is going wrong there, but the laptop i tested it on here refused to provide the edid of the panel, and only provided an edid block when i attached an external monitor, which then return the standard VBE call failed error back too. What does the tool in read-edid provide? Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
vbe-edid
When looking into #24348 i dug out the read-edid code to see what i needed to do to separately test the failing 0x4F01 call on vbe with vm86. I ended up rewriting the get-edid tool completely, it is tiny and its functionality is trivial anyway, and now we have: * actual readable C code, MIT license. * useful verbosity. * dumping of only the main edid block to mmm-.edid (just 128bytes as i am too lazy to do things properly). So, vbe-edid is available here: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~libv/vbe-edid For interpreting the edid block, use xorg/app/edid-decode. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: X server 1.9 release thoughts
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 09:30:47AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote: First off, thanks to everyone involved in the 1.8 release; it was a pleasure to work with you. I'm hoping everyone else is as happy as I am about our new release process, it seemed to me that we saw a lot more active review and discussion about proposed patches this time around. For version 1.9, I'm planning on doing things in much the same way, if people have suggestions on how we can improve things, please post them so we can get things settled before we get too far into the release. Ok, so now for the details about the 1.9 release itself. First off, I'd like to get a start on making things easier to build for people interested in testing the server or new drivers. I'm still interested in getting drivers pulled back into the server itself at some point, but it seems like an important and trivial first step will be to merge all of the protocol headers into one package. I'll get started on that and post a pointer to a merged repository for review. Beyond that, one requirement that I see for merging output drivers would be to shorten the X server release from the current 6 months down to 3 months or so. Otherwise I feel that the window of time between hardware release and driver release could become too long. I'm up for this cadence, but it would mean that we'd need to see major patches posted and reviewed in the previous release cycle so that they could be applied shortly after a release. I don't want to shorten the RC schedule by much. If ABI/API churn is an issue, we could try freezing those for the 'odd' releases, but I'd rather avoid that as it can artificially constrain development. For 1.9, I'd like to shorten the schedule a bit, if that works for other people. It seems like releasing around mid-late August would better align with the Beta schedules for Fedora, Ubuntu and MeeGo. If that seems reasonable to most people, I'd like to propose the following schedule: Merge window closes:2010-6-1 Non-critical bug deadline: 2010-8-1 Release:2010-8-20 I don't think there are any major changes planned for this release, so this shorter merge window seems like it should be sufficient. Nor do I necessarily think that this would also mean that the X.org release date should be moved in; having the X server ready *before* the X.org release seems like a good idea to me. I'll be doing periodic release candidates starting with the close of the merge window. This schedule would mean that anyone with changes they've been working on should get them posted now. Independent of the 1.9 release schedule, I'd like to encourage people to post patches as soon as possible anyway; there's no reason to wait until the feature merge window is open to get code reviewed, the merge window is supposed to be about getting changes lined up for the server release. Hi Keith. From Daniel Stone's original announcement of the new release process [1] it seemed as if the release manager would be choosen from release to release, but apparently it is now set in stone. So, congratulations on achieving would-be linus status for X.org, i know how long and hard you have been striving towards this [2]. From Daniel his mail, it seems that undoing modularization for only graphics drivers was aimed for 1.10 instead of 1.9. Is there any reason for rushing this? This means that merging graphics drivers back into the server needs to be discussed in full, instead of just being decided ad-hoc by those who were at XDC. Please list and explain the advantages that this will bring over modular drivers, a tinderbox, and patch review. Why are you pushing towards a 3 month release cycle? I can only assume that this is because the intel portland team has been doing quarterly release cycles on their intel driver. Lumping the proto headers together seems like the first step on a complete undo of modularization on the non-driver side as well. Are we now backpedalling completely on the big first really big statement X.org made? How does this look technically? Are we not going to get into a libdrm like situation, where an update of one volatile part forces a version bump of the amalgamut, which in turn forces updates of all the dependants, even when they just depend on some otherwise stable parts? Are we then not just plainly scurrying towards having the protoheaders, the libraries, the library headers and the server all back in one repository? Thanks. Luc Verhaegen. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/xorg-de...@lists.x.org/msg02128.html [2] http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/000128.html ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: [Mesa3d-dev] DRI SDK and modularized drivers.
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:46:37PM +0100, Nicolai Haehnle wrote: On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Luc Verhaegen l...@skynet.be wrote: In particular, the Mesa core - classic driver split only makes sense if there are enough people who are actually working on those drivers who would support the split. Otherwise, this is bound to lead straight into hell. In a way, the kernel people got it right: put all the drivers in one repository, and make building the whole package and having parallel put all the drivers in one repository? So, all of: * drm * firmware * libdrm * xorg * mesa/dri * mesa/gallium * libxvmc * libvdpau (add more here) of the same driver stack, in one repository? Why not? Mind you, I'm not advocating for any change at all, but as long as you feel the need to move stuff around, why not try finding a goal that people actually find useful? Of course, my suggestion is probably crap, too. Great, seems we agree on something here. [snip] The real question is: where is the most pain, and how can we reduce it. And the most pain is between the driver specific parts. Nobody has ever had to feel the pain of a separation between Mesa core and drivers. And since a git log I've just done tells me that you have committed only twice to the Mesa repository within the last year or so, maybe you should listen to the opinion of people who *have* been active in the Mesa tree when it comes to that subject, and are working on drivers that are probably significantly more involved than whatever Unichrome does. Heh. 2) it wouldn't actually solve the DRM problems, because we want to have the DRM in our codebase, and the kernel people want to have it in theirs. The kernel people can have theirs. What stops anyone from getting the drm code of a released driver stack into the next kernel version? But when anyone decides they need a new driver stack which requires a new drm module, it should be easy to replace the stock kernel module. And that has worked so well in the past. Yes, it did. And people for more than a year still pulled the mesa/drm tree and built and installed it, as doing this often solved their driver stack internal problems for them. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: [Mesa3d-dev] DRI SDK and modularized drivers.
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 12:44:39PM -0500, Bridgman, John wrote: Pulling drm back out of the kernel tree seems like a hard sell, but the ddx/mesa hw driver/libdrm set seemed like it might be a good candidate for grouping. I guess the core question is whether we expect the X-to-ddx and mesa-to-hw-driver interfaces to be more or less volatile than the ddx-to-libdrm and mesa-hw-driver-to-libdrm interfaces over the next couple of years. On the core-to-driver interface side we have the Gallium3D and GL 3/4 work, and on the libdrm interface side we have ongoing improvements in memory management and command submission. Tough call. I guess another option would be a pseudo-modular approach where the code stays in the current trees but we adopt versioning and build/test procedures which treat ddx/mesahw/libdrm as a single code base even if the code is still living in multiple projects. That might be an easy first step, but repartitioning the code does seem like a better long-term approach. If the drm code were omitted from the proposal and we focused only on ddx/libdrm/mesahw would that help ? Well, to continue down the same path: It doesn't really matter how driver developers want to scatter their own different driver bits around today. It should be up to them. It shouldn't matter, but sadly it does (as you're forced to have them into the main trees). If those developers are free to choose how they want to handle this, then it will quickly become clear for some what the best mode of working for them really is, as opposed to being forced to work one way. Then there will be pressure from users, hw and distro vendors, who might like one or another way of working better. And i guess that this is what those reasoning against this are mostly afraid of. Ideas like this can no longer be swept under the carpet with impossible. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: [Mesa3d-dev] DRI SDK and modularized drivers.
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 11:33:02AM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I've been busy trying to get a release out the door, so I haven't looked at these patches yet. I won't have a chance to look at the patches until at least late next week. I also wasn't at FOSDEM, so I don't have any of the background info. I've grouped the slides and the recordings at the top of my blog entry about this. The patches themselves are actually copies of eachother, with minor differences to adjust for changes of the tree around it (there are 16 or so versions of the sdk done from 7.0 through 7.8). Any actual patch is small, and it is build system only. If these patches try to enforce a stable interface between core Mesa and the classic DRI drivers, we're not interested. At all. This has been discussed and rejected many, many times before. Ah, prepossession. Ask yourself, did the fact that xf86 video drivers were out of tree, ever stop anyone from _really_ bad api breakage stunts? The difference with in-tree and out-of-tree here is that out-of-tree should, theoretically, lead to more prudent interface changes. This without having to enforce anything, it happens naturally. Out of tree drivers never stop interface changes, they just make them a tiny bit more involved, and therefor, hopefully, causes the person making those changes to consider his actions a bit better. But as said in an earlier email, what you incur on overhead here you can easily make up in the driver internal interfaces. And then the other synergies come weighing in. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: [Mesa3d-dev] DRI SDK and modularized drivers.
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 01:28:28AM -0700, Corbin Simpson wrote: On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Luc Verhaegen l...@skynet.be wrote: On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:28:39AM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote: Modularized dri drivers and an SDK enabled mesa tree are available in my personal git repos at http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~libv/ The SDK enabled mesa tree adds to the mesa build system to create shared libraries libmesadri and libmesadricommon. It creates the relevant .pc files and installs the necessary headers include/mesa/ (and updates glcore.h). The patch is about 300 lines each time, and only adjusts the build system. The modularized drivers are fully autotooled and can be built and installed the familiar way once the dependencies are available (currently, libdrm and the dri sdk, and some driver specific libdrms for i9xx and radeon). These drivers are i810, i9xx (i915 and i965), mach64, mga, r128, radeon (also includes r200, r300 and r600), savage, sis, tdfx and unichrome. This work was done for currently 16 versions between mesa 7.0 and the freshly tagged 7.8-rc1, all were extensively and oft repeatedly built through. 5 versions were also run tested (glxinfo, glxgears) for the radeon and unichrome drivers, and the swrast driver was also tested several times. Such a large range of versions was handled to prove the long term feasability of this. This work satisfies my requirements from my TODO: Mesa slide from my fosdem talk, for which the slides are available at: http://people.freedesktop.org/~libv/graphics_driver_stack_(FOSDEM2010_-_slides)$ This only handles the DRI part of things, gallium seems to be more in flux atm, and from what i hear, it should be easier to have modular drivers there. Comments, additions, changes? Thanks, Luc Verhaegen. After giving the mesa3d-dev list the opportunity to have a whole day of deafening silence, maybe the other lists should join in on that fun :p Hey Luc, Wow. This is pretty nifty. Lots of work here, obviously. I do have a couple of questions, though: ~) Did you know about or use the automake branch that Eric and I have had floating around for a while? Nope, didn't know about those, is this in your personal git repos? ~) Do you think it's gonna be tenable to ship the drivers with lots of shared code (i915/i965, radeon/r200/r300/r600) like this? Seems like we might run into the situation we've got right now with the X server and DDX drivers, where it might be easier to move some drivers back in. Also (warning: sore subject!) it reminds me of the mesa/drm tree and the same problems with keeping code in two locations... Maybe that's just me. The goal is to solve the dependency nightmare between the driver specific drm, libdrm, mesa and x parts. The hot and highly volatile interfaces are between the driver specific parts, as of course, developers making changes there only have to update parts of their own driver. So, identify the volatile interfaces, and the more stable interfaces, and then isolate the volatile ones, and then you come to only one conclusion. And currently the really hot interfaces are in the intel and radeon stacks, and without making any changes, we are quickly converging to a situation where the linux kernel, libdrm, xserver and mesa are 1-1 version tied. This means that if you update anything you pretty much have to update most of your installation, a situation no-one wants, and a situation which will be highly detrimental for the linux desktop. It either leads to throw-away installations (where you have to be lucky, or need to have especially backported bits, like in preloads, to be able to get things to work), or no graphics at all. And i am sure that that is not where linux should be headed, especially not when it can be solved this neatly and cleanly. As far as Gallium goes, I really wouldn't worry about it. From what I can tell, the people that actually care about header stability have been using really specific versions of the interface in their own shipped bundles, and there's far too much mainline work going on right now to really even attempt this kind of splitting. I think there's a total of five branches right now that will change the entire Gallium interface, all getting prepared for merge? Lots of churn. Gallium's all mix'n'match though, so it shouldn't be a big deal further down the road. While it probably is not that feasible right now, the people moving those interfaces that much atm should keep future modularization in mind. A nice example: If you disable building gallium (as all the drivers are still in there) and building the dri drivers (also through configure), then you can easily build mesa with libdrm 2.3.0. The xserver, with already modular xf86 drivers has exactly libdrm 2.3.0 in its configure.ac requirements. Surely this is a sign that modularizing the driver bits and posssibly
Re: [Mesa3d-dev] DRI SDK and modularized drivers.
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:28:39AM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote: Modularized dri drivers and an SDK enabled mesa tree are available in my personal git repos at http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~libv/ The SDK enabled mesa tree adds to the mesa build system to create shared libraries libmesadri and libmesadricommon. It creates the relevant .pc files and installs the necessary headers include/mesa/ (and updates glcore.h). The patch is about 300 lines each time, and only adjusts the build system. The modularized drivers are fully autotooled and can be built and installed the familiar way once the dependencies are available (currently, libdrm and the dri sdk, and some driver specific libdrms for i9xx and radeon). These drivers are i810, i9xx (i915 and i965), mach64, mga, r128, radeon (also includes r200, r300 and r600), savage, sis, tdfx and unichrome. This work was done for currently 16 versions between mesa 7.0 and the freshly tagged 7.8-rc1, all were extensively and oft repeatedly built through. 5 versions were also run tested (glxinfo, glxgears) for the radeon and unichrome drivers, and the swrast driver was also tested several times. Such a large range of versions was handled to prove the long term feasability of this. This work satisfies my requirements from my TODO: Mesa slide from my fosdem talk, for which the slides are available at: http://people.freedesktop.org/~libv/graphics_driver_stack_(FOSDEM2010_-_slides)$ This only handles the DRI part of things, gallium seems to be more in flux atm, and from what i hear, it should be easier to have modular drivers there. Comments, additions, changes? Thanks, Luc Verhaegen. After giving the mesa3d-dev list the opportunity to have a whole day of deafening silence, maybe the other lists should join in on that fun :p Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: X.Org Board Meetings: Mar. 2 Summary, Mar. 16 Agenda
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 08:33:01AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: A summary and IRC log of the March 2 meeting of the X.Org Board of Directors are now posted at: http://www.x.org/wiki/BoardOfDirectors/MeetingSummaries/2010/03-02 Thanks for posting the minutes, and btw, congratulations on becoming the secretary of the X.org foundation, and thank you for taking on this key role. I truly believe that you'll drive the foundation forwards, improve communication and increase its membership to closer match the actual contributor community. And a big Thank You to Stuart too for volunteering to take over Treasurer duties and for taking on the responsibility for finally getting the corporate and bank transition done. This has been dragging on for at least the duration of the posted irc logs, and probably a bit longer too, and i am happy that Stuart now takes over to bring this to conclusion. About this bank transition, i read in the irc logs (1) that, after all the other delays were finally resolved, it was blocked on producing an IRS 501(c)3 report for the last three years. While it is clear that no such report is available for the last year (and that Stuart, after the handover, will have to do the labour to create this, thank you for this), i am wondering; are there such reports for the previous years? If not, is there still enough data available for creating such reports? Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: Keeping the board discussion going
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 09:08:35AM +, Daniel Stone wrote: On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 12:35:08AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: Luc Verhaegen wrote: members@ is basically a dead list, except around elections. I personally am all for re-using it. Also, an archive of the ml would be handy too. There is an archive, it's just hard to find due to the way the X.Org mailing lists are currently hosted: http://foundation.x.org/pipermail/members/ Actually, it's not too bad: for all X.Org lists, you simply click on the link at the very bottom of the email, and then follow the link to the archives. :) \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ Hehe, that is way too obvious for me to find :) Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: Keeping the board discussion going
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:59:23PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: One of the things complained about in the election (and most past elections, including ones where I complained) was that the communication between the board and members tends to happen once a year at election time, and that those who want to keep up on board activity haven't been able to do so. While I plan to get the meeting summaries posted to the wiki more often (though so far I've failed at meeting that plan), following those would require subscribing to the wiki, and doesn't really give any place to ask questions or give feedback. I'm hesitant to just start posting the summaries and meeting agendas to memb...@x.org though, since I don't know if all the members want to be involved at that level (and that volume of e-mail, though hopefully it will still be lower than the xorg xorg-devel mailing lists). What do the members of the list think? Would you object to a higher email volume year round in exchange for being more informed on board activities, or should we be looking into setting up a new mailing list for those who are interested to subscribe. ( board-disc...@x.org? ) members@ is basically a dead list, except around elections. I personally am all for re-using it. Also, an archive of the ml would be handy too. Thanks for looking into these things! Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Summaries of BOD meeting transcripts available.
Bbare irclogs are incredibly daunting to read for people not used to irc, as there is usually many things going on at the same time, and not so useful banter clogging up the place. As I believe that it is very important for more people than just a few industrious irclog readers to know what the board has been up to, i decided to make summaries. Even though it's an interesting read, these summaries are still quite daunting, but at least vastly more readable than the original logs, and one can now go and go through a whole years worth in an hour or so. These summaries can be found at : http://people.freedesktop.org/~libv/BOD/ Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: Problems with X.org and incompatibilities with in-house software
before? As i doubt that such a move means that everything was done in-house before. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: Problems with X.org and incompatibilities with in-house software
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 08:25:12PM -0500, Richard Brown wrote: I do apologise for the tone of my original letter. We will be staying with X in the future and we will not be moving to another platform. Your large corporation certainly has a lightning fast decision making process. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: Board voting ends today, but...
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 05:29:14PM +, Daniel Stone wrote: Hi, On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 06:01:38PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote: I believe some things have been asked for already: * minutes or logs. Bart is collating his logs, and those will be posted very soon. * details of financial dealings. This is being worked on as well, TTBOMK. While Bart mentioned something on last weeks board meeting (http://wiki.x.org/wiki/BodIrcLog2010-02-16), I have not received a reply to my email asking for such information. I have not seen anything (more) with respect to finances either. Well, the bylaws (which were voted on by the membership back in 2006 or thereabouts -- I believe you were a member at the time this was voted on and approved) state 25%. If anyone's got any suggestions for improving the bylaws, then I'm sure they'd be welcome, and the membership can vote on changing the bylaws again. Ok, maybe this should be considered after we've managed to get all necessary information and have had credible elections. Cancelling the election would in my view be phenomenally inappropriate: if that happened and someone suggested that the board canned the election because it didn't like the field, the timing, the way it was going, etc, then I would not have any good response to them. The election schedule was revised a few times, and then the eventual election started, without warning, a month later (and very very close to, at least for me, a major event like FOSDEMthan even the latest schedule. Delaying it even more, so that we can have well informed elections, is not going to make much a difference anymore. We've all (well, mostly) voted on a board that we're presumably happy with by now. If the membership is deeply unhappy after the election, then we can vote for a recall/secondary election. But cancelling the election and continuing indefinitely with the current board is something that would make me deeply uncomfortable, and more than anything I think smacks of wild impropriety. You seem to have access to the current election results, and you mention that you are presumably happy with it now... Hrm. I am also not for postponing elections indefinitely. I want to know what we are voting for, and then see elections happen on the basis of that information. Do you really believe that waiting for relevant information will translate into postponing indefinitely? I thought that you just said that the relevant information is being actively gathered now. If this election is supposed to be about getting those people elected who will gouvern the affairs of the X.org Foundation best, then this information is absolutely essential. If of course, this is just about getting your friends elected to the board, then such information is absolutely irrelevant. You've stated that some people are distressed enough to cancel their membership -- so far I'm unaware of anyone who's done so. If the general opinion is that the organisation has been so compromised by non-disclosure that this election was not enough, then surely this will be borne out by a vote of the members. As it is, only 54 members out of 144 currently active voted in the election (up from 42 last year), and the members list is almost entirely silent except around election time. It'd certainly be nice if this newfound interest in the Foundation's health would be sustained beyond the election. People are not sure what they should be a member for. This is what Maarten stated quite blatantly. I am sure that there are many more X and relations contributors who feel the exact same way, but who have not spoken up here. The fact that the members list is entirely silent is of course easily explained; there just is nothing to talk about. We have no info on what the board does, except for an election from time to time. What do you expect people to talk about there, the weather? And don't worry about sustained interested. Our software development model has made us all very adept at filtering information, so reading through irclogs is going to be a breeze for many people, and increased information is not going to be seen as a burden. On top, i am interested in what the board does, as long as what the board does is at all relevant to the software i contribute to and on helping promote that software and the community around it. It is this lack of information that has made the board quasi irrelevant, and why some people cannot be bothered to even become a member. Open up, and prove that the X.org Foundation is relevant. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: Board voting ends today, but...
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 06:41:43PM +, Daniel Stone wrote: I meant that, on average, everyone would presumably be happy with the board, as it reflects the opinion of everyone who voted. Presumably most people who didn't vote don't particularly care about the makeup of the board, and are just as happy either way. I believe that quite a few people have voted the way they always used to vote. Especially since it took a few days for me to find the time to properly ask questions. People were used to vote without information, and this is not normal. So yes, by virtue of having run an election with a reasonable participation rate (compared to historical average), I'm saying that the membership will -- on average -- be happy with the results. But I guess you knew that. It seems that some of the membership is not overly happy with how this result was achieved, and that there are potential members who just cannot be bothered with membership. I have my own opinion, as a voter, as to who would best govern the Foundation, and I assume so do you. Anything I've done for the Foundation has been for the good of the Foundation, and not for getting my mates elected. I can confidently say that for the entirety of the outgoing board as well. While we two might have our opinions as to who best is at the Xorg Foundation board, it is not really staved by facts. I know some things left and right, but i also do not get to see anything. So i too voted just now from a gut feeling. Not a good basis for decision making. And that's fair. There's no technical role, so I guess it's just if you're interested in how money is collected and disbursed, essentially. If people are interested in that and we've failed to give them enough information to act on it, then yes, that's our failing. If people aren't interested in that, then I'm honestly not sure what to say. It seems that people are interested, as i am not the only person to speak up here now. It's just a shame no-one asked until the elections began, I guess; certainly having this all sorted out before the election would've made the whole thing a great deal less complicated. As mentioned in the threads before: * nothing ever happens except at election time. * elections were shifted quite often and eventually got sprung up on all of us, one month after the last revised schedule. * I was personally flapping around like a colibri on speed while trying to get the coreboots and Xorg devrooms at FOSDEM to run as well as possible. I'm just another member now. I've nothing to hide, nor did I as a board member. The other members are doing their level best to get as much information as possible out; the reality though is that we all have dayjobs and numerous other commitments than the Foundation, as I'm sure you understand from unichrome. But they're doing their best, and hopefully this information comes soon. If it's hugely objectionable, then I'd say a full recall election would be the best option, providing it gets significant support from the membership. I think at this point I've said everything I possibly can say, often several times. So from here on in, I'm just another interested punter. Also, it's Friday night, so I'd rather not be staring at mutt; hope you have a good weekend too. Don't take any of this personal, what i write are just honest and direct answers to your reasoning before. I appreciate the fact that you admit that you are unable to perform the duties that one would expect a member of the board of directors to perform. This is a bold and above all honest move. I also appreciate that you are answering questions here, as there is far too little response from several people. Have fun! Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: Board voting ends today, but...
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:42:17AM -0800, Carl Worth wrote: On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:03:15 -0500 (EST), Leon Shiman l...@magic.shiman.com wrote: I do not think suggesting that a member just not vote is an appropriate response from a Board Member to a legitimate concern about the election. Fair enough. I'm definitely not trying to discourage participation. Isn't it the Board's (and it's members') responsibility to ensure that the membership is sufficiently well-informed about the issues and the candidates for election to be able to exercise their voting rights. Definitely! One unfortunate thing that's happened here is that concerns were raised at the closing of the voting period, (rather than at the initial announcements of the upcoming election or the original announcements of the slate of candidates). A better response might be to find out if this was a widespread opinion, and then re-consider the closing of voting until the membership was better informed? That might be. But that's not a response that could have come from me, at least. The election is run by the election committee, (which consists of those board members whose terms are not expiring this year). So I couldn't have had any influence here. Accepting membership on the X.Org Board means accepting responsibility to respond to members' legitimate concerns - if not to anticipate them. And you asked to be elected. Absolutely! The concerns about meeting minutes and annual reports not being available are legitimate concerns. And both of these are being responded to now. Hopefully, going forward, the membership will raise any concerns in as timely a fashion as possible, and not only annually. (Though, admittedly, the board hasn't historically solicited direct input from the membership other than at the time of annual election.) -Carl Timely, heh... The elections were one month late according to the latest updated schedule. Right in the middle of FOSDEM preparations too, which i think is a valid excuse from my side for not being able to respond earlier. As brought up before; elections are pretty much the only event where anyone gets to see concrete things from the board. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: Board voting ends today, but...
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 07:58:09AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: The elections were one month late according to the latest updated schedule. Right in the middle of FOSDEM preparations too, which i think is a valid excuse from my side for not being able to respond earlier. As brought up before; elections are pretty much the only event where anyone gets to see concrete things from the board. It seems more like election time is the only time people think to question the board, which isn't really the boards fault, you could have asked these questions anytime before FOSDEM organisation took over or anytime in the last 5-7 years. Dave. But the board _is_ at fault. They never even bothered to provide the little information that the bylaws state they should provide. It is not up to the members to beg for this information at all. Please do not try to inverse the logic here. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Board voting ends today, but...
Since voting is officially ending today I have cast my votes just now... but i did not at all feel comfortable doing so. While we did start to get some insights in the Boards doings of the past year, these insights are very limited indeed. There are no transcripts nor minutes of meetings. Irc meetings are supposed to be free and open now, but the first one to become free was the one from this tuesday. There is little to no information about the X.org Foundation Boards financial handlings. Several years ago, several companies (at least one, Sun) deposited a lot of money into the foundation. It seems that the foundation had 222k usd at the start of 2007; and we have 125k usd today. We are not getting many details on how these funds were used, and we only get some very general statements about how these funds were used in the last year. And it seems that nobody on the actual board of directors has anything but some hazy ideas of what is going on. All of this makes me extremely uneasy, especially since we have to vote on a partial replacement of this board, right now. Is there anyone else who, that with the information that has now become available, would like to alter their vote? Is there anyone here who thinks that he has not enough information available today to be able to vote at all? Thanks, Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: X.Org Foundation Board of Directors 2010 Election
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 07:26:35AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote: On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:21:28 +0100, Luc Verhaegen l...@skynet.be wrote: Can we get some more details here please? Alanc also mentioned ssl certificates, FOSDEM 2010 and Videohackfest from the top of his head. We haven't paid for any SSL certificates, or a video hackfest. The sum total of our expenses can be broken down as: XDS 2008:$4499.70 XDC 2009:$2880.84 MIT hosting: $3000.00 $10380.54 Our outstanding obligations today are MIT hosting for this year ($3000) and travel expenses for FOSDEM 2010 ($660). The FOSDEM 2010 travel expenses are probably for getting Michael Gusarov to come over from Siberia. Not sure how the talk itself went (as i at that point was off talking to some people in the FOSDEM main hall), but there was a big and very enthusiastic crowd that gathered at the door for this. Any other details that you are able to expose? Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: X.Org Foundation Board of Directors 2010 Election
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 05:01:28PM +, Daniel Stone wrote: On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 04:45:09PM +, Alan Cox wrote: On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:07:32 +0100 Matthias Hopf mh...@suse.de wrote: On Feb 16, 10 07:26:35 -0800, Keith Packard wrote: Our outstanding obligations today are MIT hosting for this year ($3000) and travel expenses for FOSDEM 2010 ($660). Not that it matters too much, but $3000 sounds pretty hefty for hosting. OTOH I don't know hardware, bandwidth, or what is included (backup etc.). Seems pretty extrodinary. Exactly what can't say bluehost provide at $3.95 a month that MIT can at $250/month ? In fairness, I believe there are four machines currently racked up, even if three of them are doing nothing whatsoever. Cheers, Daniel Cool, can one be used to back up our home directories? Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: X.Org Foundation Board of Directors 2010 Election
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 02:02:21PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: Daniel Stone wrote: #xorg-bod on OFTC, fortnightly. I think it's something like 10AM Wednesdays, Portland time? For TZ=US/Pacific, 2pm on every other Tuesday. (My calendar shows the next ones are 2/16 3/2.) We should be able to add it to the X.Org google calendar whot set up. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering The log of this channel for yesterday is simply empty. Was there no board meeting whatsoever? This is strange as, according to the above email i would've expected a meeting between 23:00 and 0:00 CET. I guess that in such a case, noone will have any issues with me posting the log, both here and on the wiki. Luc Verhaegen. 17:42 -!- libv [~l...@dsl01.83.171.182.19.ip-pool.nefkom.net] has joined #xorg-bod 17:42 -!- ServerMode/#xorg-bod [+nt] by kinetic.oftc.net 17:42 [Users #xorg-bod] 17:42 [...@libv] 17:42 -!- Irssi: #xorg-bod: Total of 1 nicks [1 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 0 normal] 17:42 -!- Channel #xorg-bod created Tue Feb 16 17:42:38 2010 17:42 -!- Irssi: Join to #xorg-bod was synced in 1 secs 17:42 -!- mode/#xorg-bod [-o libv] by libv 22:13 -!- aaronp [~aa...@76-220-41-59.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #xorg-bod Day changed to 17 Feb 2010 00:09 -!- aaronp [~aa...@76-220-41-59.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: so much for that] ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: X.Org Foundation Board of Directors 2010 Election
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:29:04PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: Luc Verhaegen wrote: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 02:02:21PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: Daniel Stone wrote: #xorg-bod on OFTC, fortnightly. I think it's something like 10AM Wednesdays, Portland time? For TZ=US/Pacific, 2pm on every other Tuesday. (My calendar shows the next ones are 2/16 3/2.) We should be able to add it to the X.Org google calendar whot set up. The log of this channel for yesterday is simply empty. Was there no board meeting whatsoever? This is strange as, according to the above email i would've expected a meeting between 23:00 and 0:00 CET. Damn! I just noticed Daniel gave the wrong channel name - we were there on #xf-bod, with several guests today. Sorry about that. A copy and paste from my xchat window (apologies for the horrible readability): Hrm, what a nice start for this newfound openness. Thanks for the log, linked from http://wiki.x.org/wiki/BoardOfDirectors Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: X.Org Foundation Board of Directors 2010 Election
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:48:48AM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 03:22:12PM -0800, Barton C Massey wrote: In message 20100210173132.gb3...@skynet.be you wrote: This is what the bylaws state: The Board shall keep minutes of its meetings in which shall be recorded all action taken by it, and at least a summary thereof shall be submitted to the Members at least annually. [1] I have submitted an annual State of the Organization report during each of the last several years, most recently in January 2009. My apologies that my 2010 report is a bit late. The report does not contain a complete record of all actions taken. However to the best of my knowledge no important information was omitted. I believe this report constitutes a summary according to the intent of the bylaws. Don't you feel that the state of the organization, and thus the way it was gouverned in the last year, influences the voting for the new board? I also have meeting transcripts from each meeting starting with when we first began meeting on IRC. I haven't taken the time to turn these into published minutes, and I am uncomfortable in publishing most of them raw since some personal statements were made with an expectation of privacy. However, we recently moved to open our meetings. When is recently? I would suggest to start making logs available from here on. And provide transcripts from when the current board was put in place. This i think should be prerequisites for voting. Bart? Is there any more information available here? Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: X.Org Foundation Board of Directors 2010 Election
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 09:26:56PM -0800, Keith Packard wrote: On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:47:11 +, Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org wrote: [0]: Namely, it's been incredibly difficult to even get a statement out out of our current bank. We've been hoping to switch for quite some time, but unfortunately this is basically predicated on the 501(c)(3) transition. Yay! Our bank now makes statements available over email. Which makes things easier for me to find as physical mail tends to get shuffled in piles around my office. In any case, I've got a tentative accounting for our activities last year (I'm checking with Stuart Kreitman as he holds the other checkbook) and can summarize them by referencing two activities -- we paid for XDS expenses, both travel and hosting (for a total of about $7k) and we paid $3k to host machines at MIT. We've got around $125k left in the bank, which again makes me not get too excited about looking for additional funding sources. My personal goal for the organization is to get us to a spend rate of at least $20k a year, and to have about 2X that in the bank (other's may disagree with the numbers, of course). Which means that if you have a good idea that would help X.org development, and you just need money to make it happen, please bring it to the board and we'll figure out if we can fund it. Our 501(c)3 filing papers state that we are a non-profit educational foundation, so pretty much anything which educates people about the X window system and related technologies is in-scope for us. [1]: When basically the entire board is present at a conference, we have generally taken the opportunity to have an extended -- usually two hours plus -- meeting over lunch or dinner, which is then expensed. When this was done at Cambridge, I believe the cost was on the order of £20 per head. We haven't managed even that in the last couple of years. -- keith.pack...@intel.com Can we get some more details here please? Alanc also mentioned ssl certificates, FOSDEM 2010 and Videohackfest from the top of his head. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: X.Org Foundation Board of Directors 2010 Election
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 11:17:22PM -0800, Barton C Massey wrote: Voting for the 2010 Election of the X.Org Foundation Board of Directors opens Friday 5 Feb 2010 at 0100 UTC, and closes Thursday 18 Feb 2010 at 2300 UTC. All current Members of the X.Org Foundation are eligible to vote in this election. Members may vote by logging in to the web app at https://members.x.org Four seats are open for two-year terms, and one additional seat is open for a one-year term to finish the term vacated by Daniel Stone's resignation. For the list of candidates and their personal and contribution statements, please see http://wiki.x.org/wiki/BoardOfDirectors/Elections/2010 Thank you for your support of X.Org. Bart Massey Election Committee Chair X.Org Foundation Board of Directors b...@cs.pdx.edu My apologies for being this late with this, this all clashed with my DevRoom duties and talks at FOSDEM. I have another question. The X.org Foundation exists to best represent the interests of the X.org Foundation members, by being the legal entity responsible for the state of the Foundation. To a large extent, its responsibility is to manage the considerable amount of funds that the X.org foundation has gathered over the years, in the best interest of these X.org foundation members. (for those who wonder about the best interest of the X.org foundation members, this translates to in the best interest of the X.org community, but the organization can only officially care about those who signed up) This is what the bylaws state: The Board shall keep minutes of its meetings in which shall be recorded all action taken by it, and at least a summary thereof shall be submitted to the Members at least annually. [1] The last time the members were informed about anything to this end was in Oktober 2006 [2]. For me, an Xorg foundation member who approved these bylaws, the only point for being a member of the X.org foundation is to have some insight into and, through the yearly elections, have a say over how the X.org funds are being used. And it seems that, without knowing how the X.org foundation funds are being used, there is little point in having an election. How can we decide who will best represent the X.org foundation members interests in the future, if we have absolutely no insight as to what has happened in the past? Is there any chance that this important information becomes available to the X.org Foundation members still? Thanks, Luc Verhaegen. [1] http://www.x.org/wiki/BylawReview?action=AttachFiledo=gettarget=ProposedBylawsRevised20061029.pdf [2] http://www.x.org/wiki/BodMeetingSummaries ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: X.Org Foundation Board of Directors 2010 Election
(c)(3) transition. [1]: When basically the entire board is present at a conference, we have generally taken the opportunity to have an extended -- usually two hours plus -- meeting over lunch or dinner, which is then expensed. When this was done at Cambridge, I believe the cost was on the order of £20 per head. I have no idea when such meetings are supposed to be held, how regular there are. No such information is available publically, or at least not available to my knowledge. Secondly, if it happens openly on irc anyway, why not put the logs up on the wiki? Nothing easier than that. Third point: you say that the state of the foundation is being disclosed at every XDC. Unless you want to send every X.org foundation member over on a then very limited amount of Xorg foundation money, please make the details available on the wiki. This is very little work. Heck, since we are in the iphone generation anyway, how hard is it to organise a short video or audio recording which can serve as a basis for this? All of these things seem to be easy to fix, without much in the way of overhead. Why were none of these things thought of directly? I am the first person to think of this, because that's just who i am. Since then I have heard of several others who confirmed my sentiments. If someone needs help splitting his board meeting irc logs, i will be happy to lend a hand. I am sure that many who, like me, still need to vote will be happy to have a scroll through them, before making their decision. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: X.Org Foundation Board of Directors 2010 Election
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 09:43:04PM +, Daniel Stone wrote: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:42:33AM -0600, David Nicol wrote: A vote for David Nicol is a vote for transparency! Full transparency into exactly what all the board members know still wouldn't tell you much more than what you already know. Cheers, Daniel It will at least give us an idea as to why we are voting at all. Currently we have absolutely nothing to go by. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: X.Org Foundation Board of Directors 2010 Election
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 03:17:16PM -0800, Stuart Kreitman wrote: On 02/10/10 11:47 AM, Daniel Stone wrote: (tl;dr: Yes, I agree that the Foundation needs to be doing a lot more, but nothing we've done is hidden from our members, i.e. board members know basically as much as you, and that this is a result of lack of time/etc, rather than any desire to keep any information private. Yes, we should be doing better.) Hi, Disclaimer: All of this is off the top of my head. I could be and am probably wrong on some of the details. This does not represent an official statement on behalf of the Foundation, etc, etc. On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 06:31:32PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote: The X.org Foundation exists to best represent the interests of the X.org Foundation members, by being the legal entity responsible for the state of the Foundation. To a large extent, its responsibility is to manage the considerable amount of funds that the X.org foundation has gathered over the years, in the best interest of these X.org foundation members. Rather. For the record, I think the current balance is on the order of ~$us150k. Around the time we dissolved the sponsors' group, we decided As co-signer of the checks, that sounds really high, My guess is that its knocked down to 1/2 that by now, but I haven't seen the exact balance for a few years now. This needs to be sorted before comittments for the next conference are made.Keith? So, Stuart, you are not on the board, but you have to cosign the checks... How come there seems to be no certainty about the amount still available? Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: X.Org Foundation Board of Directors 2010 Election
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 03:22:12PM -0800, Barton C Massey wrote: In message 20100210173132.gb3...@skynet.be you wrote: This is what the bylaws state: The Board shall keep minutes of its meetings in which shall be recorded all action taken by it, and at least a summary thereof shall be submitted to the Members at least annually. [1] I have submitted an annual State of the Organization report during each of the last several years, most recently in January 2009. My apologies that my 2010 report is a bit late. The report does not contain a complete record of all actions taken. However to the best of my knowledge no important information was omitted. I believe this report constitutes a summary according to the intent of the bylaws. Don't you feel that the state of the organization, and thus the way it was gouverned in the last year, influences the voting for the new board? I also have meeting transcripts from each meeting starting with when we first began meeting on IRC. I haven't taken the time to turn these into published minutes, and I am uncomfortable in publishing most of them raw since some personal statements were made with an expectation of privacy. However, we recently moved to open our meetings. When is recently? I would suggest to start making logs available from here on. And provide transcripts from when the current board was put in place. This i think should be prerequisites for voting. I can easily make transcripts from that point forward available if the Board so directs. Given time, I can also turn transcripts into proper minutes, going as far back as is desired. However, I am incredibly swamped right now, so it will be a while. Alternatively, we could designate someone else on the Board or an agent of the Board to tackle this task. I am sorry that you feel that you have insufficient insight into the operations of the X.Org Foundation. Please feel free to contact me or any other Board Member at any time if you want further information. Bart Massey There simply is insufficient insight atm, it is not just a feeling. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: X.Org Foundation Board of Directors 2010 Election
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 05:01:11PM -0800, Stuart Kreitman wrote: On 02/10/10 03:43 PM, Luc Verhaegen wrote: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 03:17:16PM -0800, Stuart Kreitman wrote: On 02/10/10 11:47 AM, Daniel Stone wrote: (tl;dr: Yes, I agree that the Foundation needs to be doing a lot more, but nothing we've done is hidden from our members, i.e. board members know basically as much as you, and that this is a result of lack of time/etc, rather than any desire to keep any information private. Yes, we should be doing better.) Hi, Disclaimer: All of this is off the top of my head. I could be and am probably wrong on some of the details. This does not represent an official statement on behalf of the Foundation, etc, etc. On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 06:31:32PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote: The X.org Foundation exists to best represent the interests of the X.org Foundation members, by being the legal entity responsible for the state of the Foundation. To a large extent, its responsibility is to manage the considerable amount of funds that the X.org foundation has gathered over the years, in the best interest of these X.org foundation members. Rather. For the record, I think the current balance is on the order of ~$us150k. Around the time we dissolved the sponsors' group, we decided As co-signer of the checks, that sounds really high, My guess is that its knocked down to 1/2 that by now, but I haven't seen the exact balance for a few years now. This needs to be sorted before comittments for the next conference are made.Keith? So, Stuart, you are not on the board, but you have to cosign the checks... How come there seems to be no certainty about the amount still available? Luc Verhaegen. I have co-signed every check since 2005. Keith has given me a verbal on the balance from time to time, but I haven't seen a written or historical accounting in a while. I trust Keith doesn't want to do something dumb like bounce a check, and you can ask him about how skeptical and severe I am when it comes to COUNTER-signing. After all, most of this money originated from my employer. By the way, do you have receipts for reimbursement of FOSDEM costs? Stuart My question was more about how it could be possible that there seems to be a rather large discrepancy between what you think should be in the accounts, and what Daniel, a board member not handling funds, thinks should be in the accounts. This seems a weird situation. Like last year, there are no FOSDEM costs. After some questions were raised about the social event, I decided to also forgo asking X.org sponsorship for that. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: X.Org Foundation Board of Directors 2010 Election
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 05:26:15PM -0800, Stuart Kreitman wrote: On 02/10/10 05:14 PM, Luc Verhaegen wrote: Like last year, there are no FOSDEM costs. After some questions were raised about the social event, I decided to also forgo asking X.org sponsorship for that. No point in debating mere guesstimates. We're working on getting the answer for you. Well, i am worried about the general state of affairs when people are just guessing about the amount left. I would like to see how funds were used in the last year to be able to decide on the future direction. I know that you are merely there for bureaucratic reasons (while not currently part of the board), and it is good to know that you are dealing with this paperwork. As far as questions raised, this is a tough crowd, but I'd urge you to have a thick skin and persevere, we can meet any reasonable needs. Well, the FOSDEM DevRoom does not need funding for a Social Event. It seems that those who want to come along to a good and very affordable restaurant for a nice meal with us, do so anyway. And this way, those that don't like to go eating with us are no longer obliged to come (even though that never stopped some). Plus, it seems rather unlikely that we will ever have a DevRoom there again after this years appalling showing. But that is completely offtopic here. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: X.Org Foundation Board of Directors 2010 Election
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 08:03:09AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: This is explained if you follow the link in the The Elections overview page describes the voting methods and process. statement on the wiki page Bart included in the announcement. Near the bottom of the linked http://www.x.org/wiki/BoardOfDirectors/Elections page it states: Both that page and the candidates statement page are also linked to from the ballot screen. Ah, thanks for the explanation and for blending in the current affiliations on the wiki too. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: X.Org Foundation Board of Directors 2010 Election
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 11:17:22PM -0800, Barton C Massey wrote: Voting for the 2010 Election of the X.Org Foundation Board of Directors opens Friday 5 Feb 2010 at 0100 UTC, and closes Thursday 18 Feb 2010 at 2300 UTC. All current Members of the X.Org Foundation are eligible to vote in this election. Members may vote by logging in to the web app at https://members.x.org Four seats are open for two-year terms, and one additional seat is open for a one-year term to finish the term vacated by Daniel Stone's resignation. For the list of candidates and their personal and contribution statements, please see http://wiki.x.org/wiki/BoardOfDirectors/Elections/2010 Thank you for your support of X.Org. Bart Massey Election Committee Chair X.Org Foundation Board of Directors b...@cs.pdx.edu It would be interested to see company affiliations in the wiki here to remind members who works for what company. I seem to remember that the bylaws state that only 2 people from a given one company are allowed a seat on the board, and i am counting 3 intel employees here. It would be nice to know what happens when all three have been voted to the board. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: FOSDEM DevRoom schedule updated.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 08:08:47PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: If you or someone else had a talk they were ready to give and were just blocked by lack of funding, you could ask the X.Org Foundation Board for travel sponsorship - we have done that for FOSDEM before. (Letting us know how much it will cost will improve response time to any request, now that time is getting tight. No promises we'll say yes, but the odds are much higher if you ask than if you don't.) It is not a money thing here. People just cannot be bothered much it seems. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
FOSDEM DevRoom schedule updated.
http://wiki.x.org/wiki/fosdem2010 The current schedule (as it will be printed in the booklet too): * 10.00: ... * 11.00: ... * 12.00: ... * 13.00: Daniel Stone : Polishing X11 and making it shiny. * 14.00: Luc Verhaegen : The free software desktop’s graphics driver stack. * 15.00: Jerome Glisse : GPU Userspace - kernel interface Radeon kernel modesetting status. * 16.00: Mikhail Gusarov : X on e-Paper. I'm sure that the DevRoom will be brimmed when there are talks, but the FOSDEM organizers are not exactly thrilled with the coverage on even a single day, and I don't think that we will get a 6th devroom next year. Anyway, hope to meet some of you there. Mail me for contact info for friday evening supper meet-up on the grand place. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
FOSDEM2010 DevRoom speakers needed.
http://wiki.x.org/wiki/fosdem2010 We still need speakers for our fosdem devroom. I have no idea when the fosdem organisers have their printing deadline, but i doubt that it is far off. So if you are planning on in speaking at the Xorg DevRoom at one of the biggest free software events of the planet, then please get me your name, the talk title and a small abstract for a talk ASAP. Thanks. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
10th FOSDEM, 5th Xorg DevRoom.
Yes, we have another DevRoom on FOSDEM this year! I am sure that, since it is already the 5th time, FOSDEM and our devroom there does not need any further introduction :) So on Sunday the 7th of February, we will have our DevRoom in AW.124, in the same building where we sat the first two DevRooms, and we have 7 slots available for speakers. So speakers, please drop me and/or Egbert Eich all your emails with: * Talk title. * Small blurp about the talk. in the next month, as i expect the folder deadline to happen very early in january. Of course, everything is being tracked on the (you guessed it) wiki: http://wiki.x.org/wiki/fosdem2010 Also, i am once again tempted to reserve some seats at the smashingly excellent belgian restaurant the Mirabelle on saturday evening, so please drop me a note if you would like to join. See you all there! Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: laptop/graphics card to HP DreamColor LP2480ZX
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 09:46:32PM +0200, Kai-Uwe Behrmann wrote: Hello, has anyone sucessfully connected the DreamColor device with 10-bit/channel to a laptop? I would like to work and demo the HP on its full capabilities. What I have read on HP's monitor page is that simply HDMI 1.3 or preferedly a DisplayPort 1.1 connector is needed to drive the device at 10-bit. There is no compatibility hardware list to tell more if something is against a recent AMD or Nvidia. So I simply assume the HP will work flawlessly at 10-bits with any new hardware at least in OpenGL views. kind regards Kai-Uwe Behrmann -- developing for colour management www.behrmann.name + www.oyranos.org About a year ago, over a weekly beer, I heard viavia that some developer, when confronted with dream colour, had said something along the lines of: 10 bits per channel? I can do all of that inside $MyLittleWM! :) There is no point in a dreamcolour monitor unless you are actually feeding this monitor 30bit colour. This has nothing to do with what the layout in the framebuffer or drawables is like. If you have a 30bit framebuffer, but still feed your monitor a 24bit digital signal, then you're really mostly fooling yourself :) ATI R5xx and up hardware does 10bits internally throughout the modesetting chain, but unless the digital outputs are adjusted correctly, your monitor will not get this. Of course, it could be that for many generations, this was not tested properly and that therefor older hw might not work properly or might need special workarounds or that atombios does not help you to set this up. I believe that nvidia did the legwork at the dix side as iirc they made it work with their binary-only driver. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Xorg DevRoom at FOSDEM.
Hi Everyone, Final announcement about our DevRoom this year (promise) :) http://wiki.x.org/wiki/fosdem2009 All the info you need is either on there or on the fosdem main site. Hope to see many people there, Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
FOSDEM DevRoom: Printed schedule deadline extended.
Hi all, I just got an email telling me that the deadline for the printed schedule now is the 24th. Whoever wants to talk at fosdem still and wants to get into the printed schedule, or whoever still wants their slot changed from what is on http://wiki.x.org./wiki/fosdem2009, you have until friday night to tell me about it still :) Thanks, Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Xorg DevRoom at FOSDEM 2009: Speakers!!!!!
(deliberately breaking thread to get more attention :), and yes, diseased mind.) On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 06:19:26PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote: Hi all, With FOSDEM moved 3 weeks earlier than usual, i no longer have the best part of January to leisurely beg around for speakers for our DevRoom. There's a week and a half before i have to turn in the shedule. If you have something to talk about, get back to me ASAP, so i can include you in the printed shedule. Fail the deadline, and you'll have noticably lower attendance to your talk. This is the wiki page for this years event: http://wiki.x.org/wiki/fosdem2009 You can re-read the original mail here (can't find it on fd.o): http://www.mail-archive.com/xorg@lists.freedesktop.org/msg02622.html Thanks and happy new year to all, Luc Verhaegen. There's 2 days left for the printed schedule deadline, and after some armwringing and scraping there are now 6 talks lined up for a possible 12 slots. Come on guys, after the amazing devrooms we've had so far, we can surely do better than that! Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Xorg DevRoom at FOSDEM 2009: Speakers!!!
Hi all, With FOSDEM moved 3 weeks earlier than usual, i no longer have the best part of January to leisurely beg around for speakers for our DevRoom. There's a week and a half before i have to turn in the shedule. If you have something to talk about, get back to me ASAP, so i can include you in the printed shedule. Fail the deadline, and you'll have noticably lower attendance to your talk. This is the wiki page for this years event: http://wiki.x.org/wiki/fosdem2009 You can re-read the original mail here (can't find it on fd.o): http://www.mail-archive.com/xorg@lists.freedesktop.org/msg02622.html Thanks and happy new year to all, Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: xserver: Branch 'master'
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 01:29:10PM -0800, Adam Jackson wrote: configure.ac |1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) New commits: commit 58a27d2932164e43c0db42b1286ec2f95250b420 Author: Adam Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon Dec 8 16:28:00 2008 -0500 Default to x86emu even on i386 linux vm86 mode is a bad idea anyway, and using the emulator everywhere means we get a consistent set of bugs. What triggered this choice, where was this discussed? Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: modular: Changes to 'master'
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 03:00:49PM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote: Luc Verhaegen wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:16:18PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:15:58PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote: Is there a single technical reason why shipping both is a problem? If you're asking whether or not annarchy will blow up if we ship both, whether or not the server will explode in the face of two drivers with an identical prefix, etc, then the answer is no. But I don't think that's what you were trying to ask. So what stops it from being shipped as well? Who is stopping it from being shipped? I haven't seen anything in this thread to suggest that the driver will no longer be allowed to be hosted on freedesktop.org's git, ftp or http servers, just that it, like many other modules X.Org hosts and maintains, is no longer in one of our build/test scripts for developers. I guess i am just mostly appalled by the way in which this was done than anything else. Luc Verhaegen. SUSE X Driver Developer. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: modular: Changes to 'master'
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:57:03AM -0700, Daniel Stone wrote: xorg.modules |7 --- 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-) New commits: commit aa066db9fe03e39156ebd2416aea25ac72408d99 Author: Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue Oct 21 16:55:44 2008 +0100 xorg.modules: Drop radeonhd We already have a Radeon driver. Once again, a very unbiased opinion by Mr Stone. Luc Verhaegen. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: modular: Changes to 'master'
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:08:49PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:57:03AM -0700, Daniel Stone wrote: xorg.modules |7 --- 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-) New commits: commit aa066db9fe03e39156ebd2416aea25ac72408d99 Author: Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue Oct 21 16:55:44 2008 +0100 xorg.modules: Drop radeonhd We already have a Radeon driver. Once again, a very unbiased opinion by Mr Stone. Luc Verhaegen. Is there a single technical reason why shipping both is a problem? Luc Verhaegen. SUSE X Driver Developer. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: modular: Changes to 'master'
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:48:05PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:40:08PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote: It's also remarkable how this was dropped from this list initially. You didn't even bother to contact any of the very active and reachable developers on this topic at all. 'very active' - 'keeps replying to self to tell others just how shit they are, in the hope that they'll eventually give up'? cf. http://www.google.com/search?q=sven+luther+site%3Alists.debian.org ? I fail to see the relevance of that link. I just am pointing out that you silently dropped radeonhd, hidden away in a huge commit, without telling any of the radeonhd developers about it. How hard could it have been to do this openly? Users had to come point this out to us now. Luc Verhaegen. SUSE X Driver Developer. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: modular: Changes to 'master'
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:46:29PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: You're even worse at guessing timescales than I am. Cheers, 1.4.1 Still, the support load quickly comes to the radeonhd developers, and our resolution trackrecord is rather good compared. Support load to a full time triager is negligible. Luc Verhaegen. SUSE X Driver Developer. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: modular: Changes to 'master'
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 09:51:45AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote: On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 18:15 +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote: Is there a single technical reason why shipping both is a problem? For the same reason the kernel avoids shipping multiple drivers for the same hardware -- we want a unique PCI-ID - driver mapping so that all X.org downstream users share the same code base for their hardware. Afaict, there still is no need to have a 1-1 mapping. Forking driver development is a great way to explore new ideas and demonstrate new technologies, but in the long-term, we really want the best ideas to be integrated into a single driver for each device. Fortunately, X.org doesn't control what anyone uses on their own machines, so people remain free to ignore what X.org ships and replace any or all of it with other software. This still does not make such a covert action acceptable. Luc Verhaegen. SUSE X Driver Developer. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
xf86-video-radeonhd 1.2.3 Release
Announcing the 1.2.3 Release of the xf86-video-radeonhd driver. RadeonHD is the X.org X11 driver for AMD GPG (ATI) r5xx/r6xx/r7xx chipsets. The development is driven by Novell at the time of writing, together with a community of open source developers around this driver. AMD provides free documentation for the chipsets. Note the wiki on http://wiki.x.org/wiki/radeonhd - Version 1.2.3 - Added Command Submission infrastructure. http://xorg.freedesktop.org/releases/individual/driver/xf86-video-radeonhd-1.2.3.tar.bz2 MD5: 5463c6a1f77861947a1f56b349a42094 SHA1: 031d00676b0263beafba0b26060e49bf7ba52791 http://xorg.freedesktop.org/releases/individual/driver/xf86-video-radeonhd-1.2.3.tar.gz MD5: ab80697ad0b7a064137ebce4076465fb SHA1: b7b09d56fb865b9d44d1f8b9b3dda8e6e60d4d95 Luc Verhaegen. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
