On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 4:24 AM, Alan Coopersmith <[email protected]> wrote: > Alex Deucher wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Peter Hutterer <[email protected]> >> 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. > > From the distro builder point of view, when a new graphics chipset is > released, I'm much more likely to take an individual driver update back > to a LTS/enterprise support branch than take an entire new X server > version back, especially if that requires protocol updates that might > also trigger client library updates. > > (At least that's my point of view for Solaris 10 - I can't claim to have > polled the people responsible for RHEL, SLED, Ubuntu LTS or any other > enterprise release, but would be interested to see their thoughts.)
I've found this mostly to be a false economy, as unless you do a lot of QA, you are essentially running an untested combo. I know for -ati every backport requires revalidating as e.g. RHEL5 has no useful exa in the server, so suddenly you are using XAA/shadowfb codepaths nobody has tested. We ended up backporting all of xrandr core in our server instead of each driver. Dave. _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
