Re: Updating Debian X FAQ to mention X.Org/X11R6.7 plans
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 09:34:12PM -0700, John Gilmore wrote: > The Debian X FAQ is conspicuously silent about the whole X licensing > issue. This is due more to inertia on my part than anything else. > It does mention X.Org but its commentary dates from 1999, > saying that X.Org supervised the X11R6.5.1 release. Right; I've known this history section has needed an update for a while. > The FAQ also says the XFree86 Project "release their X servers under > licensing terms identical to that of the freely available X sources". Yeah, not true anymore... > It concludes, "XFree86 is thus the superset of the X Window System > that is used by the Debian GNU/Linux system." That is still true at present. > I presume from occasional comments on this list that the plan is > (someday soon) to switch everything over to base the Debian packages > on the X.Org releases. Well, Daniel Stone insists that's not true. > If so, I merely suggest putting a sentence or paragraph about those > plans in the FAQ, and removing the no longer accurate comments about > XFree86. > > If not, I'm merely confused -- and perhaps the FAQ should say > something rather than nothing. I entirely agree. Say, does anyone on this list feel like "digesting" the mails that have been sent on the subject? I don't recall most of the mails I've sent about it provoking much controversy. -- G. Branden Robinson|Every aristocracy that has ever Debian GNU/Linux |existed has behaved, in all [EMAIL PROTECTED] |essential points, exactly like a http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |small mob. -- G.K. Chesterton signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Updating Debian X FAQ to mention X.Org/X11R6.7 plans
The Debian X FAQ is conspicuously silent about the whole X licensing issue. It does mention X.Org but its commentary dates from 1999, saying that X.Org supervised the X11R6.5.1 release. The FAQ also says the XFree86 Project "release their X servers under licensing terms identical to that of the freely available X sources". It concludes, "XFree86 is thus the superset of the X Window System that is used by the Debian GNU/Linux system." I presume from occasional comments on this list that the plan is (someday soon) to switch everything over to base the Debian packages on the X.Org releases. If so, I merely suggest putting a sentence or paragraph about those plans in the FAQ, and removing the no longer accurate comments about XFree86. If not, I'm merely confused -- and perhaps the FAQ should say something rather than nothing. John
Re: Making debian package of X11R6.7 (or XFree86 4.4.0)?
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 02:31:40PM +0200, Patric Ljung wrote: > I've downloaded and compiled X11R6.7 (and also XFree86 4.4.0). > Then I installed Xorg (make install install.man). But, that > of course results in problems with the Debian packages depending > on X (xbase-common, xbase-clients, etc). > > Either I make a proper Debian package of X or setup a dummy > package that pretends to provide everything needed. > > What would your suggestion be? > > In any way, it would be helpful to get a pointer to instructions > on how to make X a Debian package. There shurely must be a package > description for XFree86 4.3, could you help me find it? > > I've never made Debian packages before, so I'm a newbie, unfortunately. X, of any variety, is a really bad package to start with. > I'm running Debian sarge, kernel 2.6.5 on a Dell Inspiron 9100 > with an ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 and am trying to get as much > support for the M12 chip as possible. The scope of your question is so broad that it would probably take weeks to work through all the details. The best terse advice I can offer is for you to run a Debian sarge or sid system, "apt-get source xfree86", and study the source package. -- G. Branden Robinson| There is resilient security in Debian GNU/Linux | openness, and brittle security in [EMAIL PROTECTED] | secrecy. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Bruce Schneier signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Making debian package of X11R6.7 (or XFree86 4.4.0)?
Hi, I've downloaded and compiled X11R6.7 (and also XFree86 4.4.0). Then I installed Xorg (make install install.man). But, that of course results in problems with the Debian packages depending on X (xbase-common, xbase-clients, etc). Either I make a proper Debian package of X or setup a dummy package that pretends to provide everything needed. What would your suggestion be? In any way, it would be helpful to get a pointer to instructions on how to make X a Debian package. There shurely must be a package description for XFree86 4.3, could you help me find it? I've never made Debian packages before, so I'm a newbie, unfortunately. I'm running Debian sarge, kernel 2.6.5 on a Dell Inspiron 9100 with an ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 and am trying to get as much support for the M12 chip as possible. thanks in advance, Patric -- - Patric Ljung ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Tel: 011-363327 ITN, Campus Norrköping (www.itn.liu.se) 0709-441100 Linköpings universitet, 601 74 Norrköping Fax: 011-363270 "I don't expect you to Buy any specific program to read my mail or any attachments (unless mutually agreed otherwise). So don't expect me to read any documents or media in proprietary formats that might require commercial programs (unless agreed otherwise)." Digital Freedom of Indepence
Re: X11R6.7
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 12:32:36PM +0200, David Mart?nez Moreno wrote: > El Martes, 13 de Abril de 2004 22:59, Keith Packard escribi?: > > Around 15 o'clock on Apr 13, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > I think it might be easier to transition our developers and users if we > > > packaged the X.Org monolithic tree, adding stuff from modular tree in > > > parallel as it becomes available. > > > > That depends to some degree on whether I manage to convince the X.org > > developers to take the time right now to transition the tree to a modular > > structure without making any code changes. If so, then having Debian > > transition to the modular version of X11R6.7 might make more sense than > > moving to the monolithic version of 6.7 only to then repackage with the > > modular bits a short time later. > > > > The goal here is to leave the code completely unchanged and only modify > > the build and packaging systems. > > Hello, Keith, do you have any updates on this? http://freedesktop.org/~daniel/xserver-200405100146.tar.bz2 This is a source tree of the X11R6.7 server with very, very few code changes, being built with the modular build system. Works for fbdev and ati, with acceleration (but not DRI) on ATI. :) d -- Daniel Stone<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: X11R6.7
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 El Martes, 13 de Abril de 2004 22:59, Keith Packard escribió: > Around 15 o'clock on Apr 13, Branden Robinson wrote: > > I think it might be easier to transition our developers and users if we > > packaged the X.Org monolithic tree, adding stuff from modular tree in > > parallel as it becomes available. > > That depends to some degree on whether I manage to convince the X.org > developers to take the time right now to transition the tree to a modular > structure without making any code changes. If so, then having Debian > transition to the modular version of X11R6.7 might make more sense than > moving to the monolithic version of 6.7 only to then repackage with the > modular bits a short time later. > > The goal here is to leave the code completely unchanged and only modify > the build and packaging systems. Hello, Keith, do you have any updates on this? Best regards, Ender. - -- Uh, we had a slight weapons malfunction, but uh... everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here now, thank you. How are you? -- Han Solo (Star Wars). - -- Servicios de red - Network services RedIRIS - Spanish Academic Network for Research and Development Red.es - Madrid (Spain) Tlf (+34) 91.212.76.25 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAqJTEWs/EhA1iABsRAi2YAJ0Trb1pXuFcwNeGxG+s5irUTO9znACglAJj fXjjOK2RYMaqppMNJVE94sU= =TAEf -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: X11R6.7
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 10:44:46PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 03:16:03PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > I think it might be easier to transition our developers and users if we > > packaged the X.Org monolithic tree, adding stuff from modular tree in > > parallel as it becomes available. > > I suppose that the current packaging would transition over well to the > X.org tree, making a rollout relatively easy in comparison with a > completely retooled xizzle tree. Has anyone looked at how much new work > would have to be done for packaging the X.org tree? You still need to rename all the packages (including, but not limited to, the source package), and deal with all the s/XFree86/Xorg/ mess. It's very, very non-trivial. -- Daniel Stone<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: X11R6.7
On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 03:16:03PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > I think it might be easier to transition our developers and users if we > packaged the X.Org monolithic tree, adding stuff from modular tree in > parallel as it becomes available. I suppose that the current packaging would transition over well to the X.org tree, making a rollout relatively easy in comparison with a completely retooled xizzle tree. Has anyone looked at how much new work would have to be done for packaging the X.org tree? - David Nusinow
Re: X11R6.7
Keith Packard wrote: > Around 15 o'clock on Apr 13, Branden Robinson wrote: > >> I think it might be easier to transition our developers and users if we >> packaged the X.Org monolithic tree, adding stuff from modular tree in >> parallel as it becomes available. > > That depends to some degree on whether I manage to convince the X.org > developers to take the time right now to transition the tree to a modular > structure without making any code changes. Yes, indeedy. > If so, then having Debian > transition to the modular version of X11R6.7 might make more sense than > moving to the monolithic version of 6.7 only to then repackage with the > modular bits a short time later. Ye! We like it! > The goal here is to leave the code completely unchanged and only modify > the build and packaging systems. That would rock -- Make sure your vote will count. http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
Re: X11R6.7
On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 03:16:03PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 08:26:19PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 08:42:50AM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: > > > Hopefully this is no oh-no-not-again question: > > > > > > What happens after XFree86 4.3? I understand that you don't > > > like the license of version 4.4. Is X11R6.7 a better choice? > > > > None of us have plans to package the X.Org monolithic tree: > > That's not entirely true; I've thought about it. (To the best of my knowledge). > > we plan to migrate to the modular tree when it's practicable. > > I think it might be easier to transition our developers and users if we > packaged the X.Org monolithic tree, adding stuff from modular tree in > parallel as it becomes available. Every single library is available. Convincing the monolithic tree to build without a lot of libs is difficult verging on impossible, as I've discovered with Xizzle[0], because there's a fundamental, long-held assumption in the XFree86 DDX: the build is being done in parallel with the libraries. I think it would be less pain in terms of having to rebuild packages, having to completely reshape source packages, etc, if we just did a migration to the modular libs, server and apps at the same time. I don't think it would be painful if we tried it out in experimental or a staging area or something - I'm confident we can, as a team, pull this off pretty seamlessly. I don't think the monolithic tree is sustainable beyond the availablilty of a modular alternative, but that's just my personal view. [0]: My fork of the XFree86 DDX using the xserver DIX and build system - stalled awaiting a laptop so I can see where it crashes. -- Daniel Stone<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: X11R6.7
Around 15 o'clock on Apr 13, Branden Robinson wrote: > I think it might be easier to transition our developers and users if we > packaged the X.Org monolithic tree, adding stuff from modular tree in > parallel as it becomes available. That depends to some degree on whether I manage to convince the X.org developers to take the time right now to transition the tree to a modular structure without making any code changes. If so, then having Debian transition to the modular version of X11R6.7 might make more sense than moving to the monolithic version of 6.7 only to then repackage with the modular bits a short time later. The goal here is to leave the code completely unchanged and only modify the build and packaging systems. -keith pgpRPTP07vNM5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X11R6.7
[Harald, are you subscribed to debian-x? If so, I apologize for CCing you.] On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 08:26:19PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 08:42:50AM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: > > Hopefully this is no oh-no-not-again question: > > > > What happens after XFree86 4.3? I understand that you don't > > like the license of version 4.4. Is X11R6.7 a better choice? > > None of us have plans to package the X.Org monolithic tree: That's not entirely true; I've thought about it. > we plan to migrate to the modular tree when it's practicable. I think it might be easier to transition our developers and users if we packaged the X.Org monolithic tree, adding stuff from modular tree in parallel as it becomes available. Just my two cents. Fellow list subscribers, please feel free to discuss. -- G. Branden Robinson| "To be is to do" -- Plato Debian GNU/Linux | "To do is to be" -- Aristotle [EMAIL PROTECTED] | "Do be do be do" -- Sinatra http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: X11R6.7
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 08:42:50AM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: > Hopefully this is no oh-no-not-again question: > > What happens after XFree86 4.3? I understand that you don't > like the license of version 4.4. Is X11R6.7 a better choice? None of us have plans to package the X.Org monolithic tree: we plan to migrate to the modular tree when it's practicable. -- Daniel Stone<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
X11R6.7
Hi folks, Hopefully this is no oh-no-not-again question: What happens after XFree86 4.3? I understand that you don't like the license of version 4.4. Is X11R6.7 a better choice? Regards Harri
