Bug#825833: libkms

[ydirson]

Well, the fact that it's enabled by default upstream, and that at least
one very recent piece of software requires it could weight a bit :)

- Mail original -
> De: "Julien Cristau" 
> À: ydir...@free.fr, 825...@bugs.debian.org
> Cc: 825833-submit...@bugs.debian.org
> Envoyé: Vendredi 15 Juillet 2016 22:33:41
> Objet: Re: Bug#825833: libkms
> 
> On Wed, Jul  6, 2016 at 18:46:32 +0200, ydir...@free.fr wrote:
> 
> > In fact, it looks like libkms was built in the past, but is
> > explicitely
> > disabled now.  There is probably a reason for this, but there is no
> > more
> > information than that in the changelog, and no README.Debian.
> > 
> > Could we please have more insight about why this decision was made
> > ?
> > 
> libkms wasn't used/useful then, I'd need some convincing to re-enable
> it.
> 
> Cheers,
> Julien
> 

Bug#825833: libkms

[ydirson]

- Mail original -
> De: "Sven Joachim" 
> À: ydir...@free.fr
> Cc: 825...@bugs.debian.org, 825833-submit...@bugs.debian.org
> Envoyé: Mercredi 6 Juillet 2016 19:14:41
> Objet: Re: Bug#825833: libkms
> 
> On 2016-07-06 18:46 +0200, ydir...@free.fr wrote:
> 
> > In fact, it looks like libkms was built in the past, but is
> > explicitely
> > disabled now.  There is probably a reason for this, but there is no
> > more
> > information than that in the changelog, and no README.Debian.
> >
> > Could we please have more insight about why this decision was made
> > ?
> 
> It seems libkms was considered deprecated in bug #684593[1], but at
> least Fedora, Mageia and Archlinux continue to ship it.

Well, I'd think we could wait for upstream to disable it by default
before stopping to ship it.

>From my drm-beginner point of view at least, libkms seems a much more friendly
option than ioctl'ing for buffer management :)

Bug#825833: libkms

[ydirson]

In fact, it looks like libkms was built in the past, but is explicitely
disabled now.  There is probably a reason for this, but there is no more
information than that in the changelog, and no README.Debian.

Could we please have more insight about why this decision was made ?

best regards,
-- 
Yann

Bug#648443: recommend libx11-doc

[ydirson]

> libx11-dev is not installed by
> default.  As far as I'm concerned this is a non-bug.

Policy says:

 `Recommends'
  This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency.

  The `Recommends' field should list packages that would be found
  together with this one in all but unusual installations.

Today it is quite common (and I would argue that it is the most common case)
to install -dev packages just to be able to compile some software.  Thus it
is not unusual at all not to need -doc packages.  And in fact the vast majority
of Debian packages only has a Suggests: relationship between -dev and -doc 
packages,
including several xorg packages (xcb, xaw...)

In the context where Debian gets installed more and more on space-constrained/
embedded platforms, installing it by default is even less relevant.