On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Alan Coopersmith <Alan.Coopersmith at sun.com> wrote:
> much of what's in there has to go through the normal review processes > (design review, code review, ARC review, license review, etc.) before > it could go into the Nevada gates used to build the Sun distros. > > -- > -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com > Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering You mean it is better to have an ARC-reviewed version of dummy_drv.so (or BSD's wsfb_drv.so) , than to have accellerated native Xorg drivers and Mesa? If this is your company's philosophy, then I must agree with you. Licensing: It cannot be the true reason, because you ship the very same drivers, servers and libs an x86 already (ati, radeonhd, mga, glint). The single exception could be sunffb (and cg6 which is irrelevant and can be dropped), which you don't ship on x86, but which is also distributed and maintained by Xorg (although it is not under the Xorg main license, but under those of its authors, it should not be problematic). But for all the other drivers except sunffb this argument is completely invalid. Because it is the same stuff that you already ship on x86, only modified and recompiled, and the modifications are also under your license, because I have signed the CA. But you will always find reasons why you are right and I am wrong. For example, why do you mention conary? It has nothing to do with what I have been talking about, it is a completely different situation there. I don't expect Sun to adopt it, as repeatedly and explicitly stated last week. All I objected to was the way in which Sun has pushed through the IPS vs. conary decision over the community base. But that has exactly nothing to do with this thread's subject.
