Around 19 o'clock on Mar 8, Keith Whitwell wrote: > I don't have any in-principle objections to this, though I'd like to get > more of a feel for the "new X.org" before committing to anything.
That seems sensible. I don't think there's any particular urgency here, nothing related to DRI will likely change radically anytime soon. > Will the X.org tree include all the XFree86 DDX code - we obviously rely on > that as well as the core DRI protocol stuff. Yes. Right now, the X.org tree is serving as a place for developers and distributors to collaboratively support an X tree that is essentially identical to XFree86 4.4, but without the new license and the (very small) amount of code published only under that license. Stablizing the tree and getting something shipping that people can distribute is the first priority. I'm sure lots of people would like to see Mesa/DRI development more closely tied to X driver development so that there wasn't this 'big merge' problem to face every few months. Precisely how that should work is something we can figure out in time. One key is to split responsibilities across stable interfaces so that we can ship modern drivers into existing distributions. Of course, my own hope is that X turns into a simple GL application and all of the hardware management becomes someone else's problem... -keith
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
