Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42

Thread: More Backporting Madness: X Server 1.8 To 1.7

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,790

    Default

    Famous last words: "We know what we're doing."

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    52

    Default

    I have no idea what this means from a programming angle but it sounds to me like a big bloody mess.
    Someone please prove me otherwise.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    577

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyHiRider View Post
    I have no idea what this means from a programming angle but it sounds to me like a big bloody mess.
    Someone please prove me otherwise.
    They're the ones who're going to have to support it. I imaging kernel, xorg maintainers are going to tell Ubuntu users to take a running jump when they ask for help

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    315

    Default

    Tough one. By doubling the efforts they can get more nitty gritty with both sets of code and maybe somehow end up with .32 being better than it would have been otherwise which would lead to a better .33 and .34. Fedora 13 alpha is rediculously stable though and I've been using it daily driver for 3 days now. They really are getting too good at what they do. It's gotta pick a resting platform somewhere sometime but it's all moving too fast.
    I think some good can come from sticking with .32 working that code over nice and good in external programs and then sucking that improved code into .34 and just leaving .33 as another testing workground.
    1.8 is a hell of x-server. I don't see them having too much hassle with it. I've only had to downgrade 1 x-server out of the huge flurry of x-redo's the last 3 months and just by judging bugzilla nobodies having too much hassle with it. Every rebase seems as good or better than the last. You're gonna have to break things much worse than has happened to get a good scare going on this move.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Die trolls, die!
    Posts
    525

    Default

    Michael, please stop spreading this sort of misinformation.

    Now there's a possibility we could see the same sort of back-porting occur with the X.Org Server. The Ubuntu X team has already brought some of the udev input changes over to their X.Org Server 1.7.x code-base due to the deprecation of the FreeDesktop.org HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) in Ubuntu 10.04.
    False. Ubuntu's X server contains an early draft of the udev patch that is in now way in line with how upstream has finally decided to solve the problem of device configuration.


    Timo Aaltonen has now published a patch to Ubuntu-X that brings most of the X Server 1.8 features back atop their 1.7 server.
    False. xorg.conf.d support is only a small part of 1.8, a few hundred lines of code, really.

    This includes support for the xorg.conf.d, the new input class attributes, proper udev support (the currently back-ported support isn't the same as upstream),
    These are all pretty much the same thing.

    and various other patches that address different bugs.
    Source?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Die trolls, die!
    Posts
    525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireBurn View Post
    They're the ones who're going to have to support it. I imaging kernel, xorg maintainers are going to tell Ubuntu users to take a running jump when they ask for help
    It's exactly the opposite actually. What's currently in lucid bears little resemblance to what upstream is shipping in either 1.7 or 1.8.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    319

    Default

    lols at the cluelessness.

    You do realise RHEL is all backports all the time? its highly stable and makes a lot of money.

    You don't honestly expect the RHEL5 2.6.18 kernel is just upstream kernel + some stable patches?

    not sure why you'd expect Ubuntu LTS to be able to be any different. Its all about the QE they do and nothing to do with the code they backport.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,790

    Default

    Last time I tried to build a RHEL kernel, everything from later versions seemed it was missing. So from the surface, it looks like that: 2.6.18 with some security and *minor* feature patches.

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    Famous last words: "We know what we're doing."
    We'll see. The same about moving some buttons to the left which is stupid. There are many complains about this, but it seems Canonical doesn't care what their users want... It seems also many reports will die at launchpad rather then go upstream "thanks" to their backporting madness.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Debian stable is stable and old.
    Debian bleeding edge is bleeding edge.
    Something is missing in between and that is Ubuntu; mostly stable but also new features.

    I guess we'll have to wait and see. But make no mistake; Ubuntu is because of its nature not about helping other projects evolve and grow and it is not about fixing bugs upstream for stability. Instead, Ubuntu is all about taking the 'now' and bringing it to the end-user by means of some (in this extreme amount of) ductape.

    It is the experience, and thus the promotion, of Desktop Linux and that is what Ubuntu is contributing to the Linux ecosystem.

    And now I'm going to get some sleep because it's too fscking late...

Posting Permissions

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