0000_backport_from_upstream.diff does not serve a functionally different purpose from 000_stolen_from_HEAD.diff
At this point both contain patches which are on upstream HEAD but not upstream branch. They should probably be merged. And perhaps reorganized by module; in particular, splitting out the radeon and nv patches into separate modules is reasonable. Yes, I'm volunteering. However I wouldn't do it until there's a patch audit list so that such things can be noted on it; otherwise it will just confuse people doing the patch audit. More small-scale thoughts (would patches be welcome?): 001_kernel_version_in_banner.diff won't apply cleanly to 6.8.2, because the name sanitization in that file didn't go in until revision 1.9 of the Imakefile, and 6.8.2 tagged revision 1.7. Either the patch can be respun (without changes) against 6.8.2, or the name work can be stolen from HEAD. Incidentally, would people be interested in annotations in the stolen_from_HEAD patches indicating which upstream revisions they're present in? It could make future work of this sort easier. 007_fix_xfree86_man_version_string.diff It looks like this is still wanted. (It's cosmetic, right, to add the word "Version" and some quotation marks so it's formatted right?) But I suspect that changing xfree86.cf won't help, and we should instead (or additionally?) change xorg.cf. I could do some testing if necessary. Actually, I suspect this change belongs right in X11.tmpl. Hmm. 010_donot_build_XpConfig.diff Does this really belong upstream? I wouldn't think so; it looks like it depends on the particular packaging format with an xprint-common. In any case it's not entirely clear that Debian will need to keep xprint-common forever. Suggest moving this to a 900-series patch. 099z_xkb_fix_rules_xfree86.diff The patch has been updated to X.org, but oddly the comments and patch name haven't been. 990_ubuntu_accept_enabled_for_extensions.diff probably deserves to go upstream Comments regarding upstream submission to XFree86 should probably be replaced with "Not submitted upstream"; I'd be willing to prepare such a patch as well. -- This space intentionally left blank. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
