About removal of xorgcfg from source tree

[Paulo Cesar Pereira de Andrade]

(hand made quote)
[...]

>  65 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 27296 deletions(-)
> 
> New commits:
> commit 5c1e254cc85e9ad409b0217780545c29f62d5feb
> Author: Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org>
> Date:   Thu Jul 24 03:01:45 2008 +0300
> 
>     Remove xorgcfg
>     
>     Us shipping a GUI configuration utility (especially as part of the
>     server!) was pretty pointless.  There was pretty much nothing it could
>     configure which wasn't already runtime adjustable: if you could get a
>     server up with functioning input and output, there wasn't much xorgcfg
>     could do for you.
>     
>     Au revoir.
[...]

  It was part of the server because the server was part of "everything else"
at some point.
  Well, you could have asked me (as I am out of my cave for quite some time now),
I have stated before that I have/had interest on working on it again, as it was
unchanged for like 6 years. Maybe you have just made me a favour :-)

  It should have been moved out of the "X Server tree", but a good reason to
keep it there could be if the code to load/check modules were updated.

  I think at least a simplified version of it should remain, i.e. the
ncurses textmode could still be useful for things like setting an alternate
video driver, or overriding some default, without needing to actually edit
xorg.conf.
  Either xorg.conf or something else should be used to store "default" initial
values, even if the XServer "autoconfigures" to start with the optimal values,
an user may not want those "optimal value".

  But xf86cfg (xorgcfg is an even worse name :-) was never what could be
called a program easily usable by some some "random user", and most distro
"Xconfigurator like tools" are easier to user, or at least are maintained.

Paulo