On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Jamie Zawinski wrote: > In summary: > > The Debian package of xscreensaver currently excludes many savers from the > default install, on the basis of them using too much CPU. This is no longer > the case. As those savers no longer use too much CPU, the justification for > excluding them from the default install no longer exists, and they should be > installed by default.
Short response: It is still the case on common hardware... > Longer version: > > I believe these are the tests they ran, years ago: > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Screensavers Yes, but I have occasionally been running more tests since then, so I know it is still a problem. I need to update that page though. > It has always been my goal with xscreensaver that *no* screen saver should > use significant CPU when running. Since he ran his tests, I have fixed those > savers that were using too much CPU (mostly by adjusting their default > settings to be gentler). > > It is my belief that currently, none of the screen savers included with > xscreensaver use significant CPU when running with their default options. Note that the high CPU usage is often (always) due to lack of functionality in the graphic card drivers, and not to bugs in xscreensaver. We rely on our own testing on different hardware and of reported bugs about high CPU usage. This has not been very systematic but as often in distribution packaging, a compromise between time invested and getting "most" things to work for "most" people. Since we are providing a Linux distribution, the end user experience is what counts. We can not play the blame game ("notourbug") and tell people to fix their graphics drivers. And yes, I try to fix graphics drivers also, at least by doing some xorg related QA work and smaller patches. > Therefore, it is my belief that the -extra packages are unnecessary, and > their contents should be folded in to the -data and -gl packages, reducing > the number of xscreensaver packages from 5 to 3. I would like this to happen > so that the default is to install the *complete* xscreensaver package instead > of just an arbitrary subset of it. Since most users will just take the > defaults, they won't even know that the "part 2" savers exist, and many of > them are pretty cool! And the justification for excluding them no longer > exists. > Yes, the package complexity is not nice for anyone, and it is sad when some users don't know they can try out all hacks by installing the extra packages. I would even have liked to see the package count down to 2 since everybody has GL libraries installed, at least if some detection of HW acceleration could be done run-time. However we haven't come up with a better mechanism for us or the consumers (whether users, system administrators or downstream packagers) to select which hacks to run by default. Most consumers of the hacks do not even run the xscreensaver engine and its preferences dialog. The treatment of the xscreensaver package certainly is made more complicated by the fact that parts of it are used by other screensaver engines. Which you probably have mixed feelings about :) > Over the past 3 years, I have repeatedly asked Jose to re-run the tests he > ran by which he decided which savers to push into the "extras" package, and > let me know if he still sees any savers using excessive CPU (because I don't > believe there are any, but if there are, I would like to fix that bug.) > > I'm sorry to say that he has never responded. > > In fact, I haven't gotten any mail from him at all since September 2008, so > even though he is still listed as the Debian maintainer of xscreensaver, I'm > not sure he is still paying attention. Jamie, I have the impression you are reading some of the xscreensaver bug mail, so you have certainly seen that Jose is actively maintaining it together with me. So please no theater. On the other hand it is better that you route your requests through the bug tracker like you are doing this time, or to the package maintainer list (which I fail to remember the address of here and now) rather than sending him private e-mail. None of us are working full time on this, and in busy times some things slip through the cracks. > > So -- if there is anyone reading this who considers themselves to be in > charge of the Debian xscreensaver package, please reconsider the split > between the "default" and "extras" packages, because I believe it to be based > on old data and on assumptions which are no longer true. > We are continuously reconsidering the split (ever since before we made it), but we would need an alternative solution to the issues it addresses. Until the day all hacks run nicely on almost all hardware. > Thanks... Thanks for bringing it up again. It is time we do a new round of benchmarks. Unfortunately I haven't had much success in getting other people to contribute benchmark results yet. And your suggestions are truly welcome. We are just packagers, and would like to help to get your software in the hands of all users that can profit from it, and so that it works without any hassle for them. The less clutter and magic we have in our debian/ directory, the happier we will be. Tormod -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
