Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42

Thread: More Backporting Madness: X Server 1.8 To 1.7

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,686

    Default More Backporting Madness: X Server 1.8 To 1.7

    Phoronix: More Backporting Madness: X Server 1.8 To 1.7

    With Ubuntu 10.04 LTS shipping with the Linux 2.6.32 kernel rather than the latest stable release (the Linux 2.6.33 kernel), there has been some back-porting of code to this older release. The Lucid Lynx is using the 2.6.32 kernel since this is a Long-Term Support release and so Canonical and the Ubuntu kernel team has been more conservative this time around...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODA5OA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    101

    Default

    This could get ugly...
    Maybe they should plan on pushing the release date to May or June?

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by waucka View Post
    This could get ugly...
    Maybe they should plan on pushing the release date to May or June?
    Then they would have to rename it to Ubuntu 10.05 or 10.06, which is not happening. They are set on a 6 month release schedule, where the first number is the year and the second is the month.

    Anyway, backporting stuff is a waste of Canonical's resources. They should just upgrade Ubuntu 10.10 to the latest kernel and xserver, recompile their packages around that and be done with it.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    30

    Default

    I've replied to the original ml thread and tried to correct some answer the "questions" shown here..

    but I see now that it was not enough:

    - this is my own time that's wasted
    - yes I know what I'm doing
    - it's not a HACKport, but rather upstream code that'll get released RSN
    - it's not a bloody mess, they apply rather cleanly on top of 1.7.6
    - if it would be accepted that would have to be both for Debian and Ubuntu, not either or
    - only a handful of the X11 packages have a real diff between D & U, rest are pretty much in sync

    there, that should cover it, for now

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tjaalton View Post
    I've replied to the original ml thread and tried to correct some answer the "questions" shown here..

    but I see now that it was not enough:

    - this is my own time that's wasted
    - yes I know what I'm doing
    - it's not a HACKport, but rather upstream code that'll get released RSN
    - it's not a bloody mess, they apply rather cleanly on top of 1.7.6
    - if it would be accepted that would have to be both for Debian and Ubuntu, not either or
    - only a handful of the X11 packages have a real diff between D & U, rest are pretty much in sync

    there, that should cover it, for now
    Timo:

    Your work is greatly appreciated, at least by me Many times people take for granted volunteering time from awesome folks who are using their spare time to give others free software.

    At the same time, I think it is in everybody's best interest if people express their opinions respectfully in terms of how we can do things better next time (we can always improve). And this is what I meant to do a few posts above I'd love to know your opinion, actually.

    Cheers!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mendieta View Post
    Timo:

    Your work is greatly appreciated, at least by me Many times people take for granted volunteering time from awesome folks who are using their spare time to give others free software.
    well it's partly paid time since this would help my work as a sysadmin

    At the same time, I think it is in everybody's best interest if people express their opinions respectfully in terms of how we can do things better next time (we can always improve). And this is what I meant to do a few posts above I'd love to know your opinion, actually.

    Cheers!
    Selective backporting gives the best of both worlds; new features on top of a stable base. Xserver 1.7.x has been great, but a prerelease for most of the release cycle would've meant a lot more pain than what some backports might cause.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    21

    Default

    This is madness

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    20

    Default

    it is waste of time....

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    261

    Default

    couldnt they have put effort in the X server 1.8 branch as a hole instead of working for themselves? maybe i dont get the situation right.. all desicions when what program release will be due out, have been made far before oktober last year, havent they?
    i wonder if the fglrx driver made this choice come up by some amount. cause i didnt get the reason (or this quote) at all, as im not a native english speaker. maybe someone can explain please?






    P.S.: im sry for having accused Canonica/Ubuntu for not being too much a part of linux community. now i know they are not as they are a profit oriented company (in some way).

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,177

    Default

    Despite all this backporting, Ubuntu 10.04 LTS is a great release and running better than I would have ever expected. I still think they should have gone with Xserver 1.8 and Linux 2.6.33 (and maybe Mesa 7.8) though...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •