X server 1.9 release thoughts

Keith Packard keithp at keithp.com
Wed Apr 7 17:07:57 PDT 2010

On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:32:32 -0400, Alex Deucher <alexdeucher at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer at who-t.net> wrote:

> > It's a numbers game. How many contributors and testers will I lose or gain
> > compared to the hours of work spent? Until the server is a lot easier to
> > build from scratch, I think the numbers aren't in my favour yet.
> I agree with this sentiment for video drivers right now as well.

I think that's where we all are at present; we want to make things
easier for everyone, and it's not obvious that merging the X bits
needed to build a server is the best way to make this happen today.

The other issue briefly touched on is the mesa/libdrm situation. Right
now, libdrm gets released at the drop of a hat when some driver needs a
new interface or bug fix. That's bee tremendously useful, but it often
means that mesa and the video drivers are tied to a very new libdrm
release, so people testing video drivers often need a new libdrm *and* a
new mesa. Merging the video drivers into the server means we'd now end
up forcing people to upgrade libdrm and mesa to build the server.

Let's see what we think in a few months when we're starting to do
planning for 1.10; we'll have had some experience with the merged
protocol headers by that point (I hope), perhaps that's all we need to

keith.packard at intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20100407/517a5f41/attachment.pgp>

More information about the xorg-devel mailing list