Re: Making Xorg easier to test (was Re: [git pull] drm request 3)

2010-03-08 Thread Daniel Stone
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:30:38AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Daniel Stone wrote: FWIW, Option ModulePath in xorg.conf lets you more or less do this; the usual approach is to install your new server + drivers into a separate prefix. The thing is, Xorg has - and I

Making Xorg easier to test (was Re: [git pull] drm request 3)

2010-03-05 Thread Carlos R. Mafra
On Fri 5.Mar'10 at 8:44:07 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: Yeah. I've seen a few other bad arguments as well: 'exploding test matrix' This is often the result of _another_ bad technical decision: over-modularization. Xorg, mesa/libdrm and the kernel DRM drivers pretty share this

Re: Making Xorg easier to test (was Re: [git pull] drm request 3)

2010-03-05 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:00:30 +0100, Carlos R. Mafra said: Why can't there be a 'Linus Torvalds' for Xorg accepting patches from various maintainers and keeping the whole thing tied up? Why can't it mimic the 'make menuconfig' way of selecting what to compile to have the guarantee that the

Re: Making Xorg easier to test (was Re: [git pull] drm request 3)

2010-03-05 Thread Matt Turner
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Carlos R. Mafra crmaf...@gmail.com wrote: Why can't there be a 'Linus Torvalds' for Xorg accepting patches from various maintainers and keeping the whole thing tied up? Why can't it mimic the 'make menuconfig' way of selecting what to compile to have the

Re: Making Xorg easier to test (was Re: [git pull] drm request 3)

2010-03-05 Thread Daniel Stone
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 10:22:27AM -0500, Matt Turner wrote: On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Carlos R. Mafra crmaf...@gmail.com wrote: Why can't there be a 'Linus Torvalds' for Xorg accepting patches from various maintainers and keeping the whole thing tied up? Why can't it mimic the

Re: Making Xorg easier to test (was Re: [git pull] drm request 3)

2010-03-05 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Carlos R. Mafra wrote: Whereas everytime I wanted to do that with Xorg it was such a pain that I want to keep away from that mess. Actually, take it from me: Xorg is _pleasant_ to test these days. Ok, so that's partly compared to the mess it _used_ to be, but it's

Re: Making Xorg easier to test (was Re: [git pull] drm request 3)

2010-03-05 Thread Daniel Stone
Hi, On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 07:53:46AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: These days, there's a few dependencies you need to know about (I do agree that from a user perspective the thing might have been made a bit _too_ modular) Indeed, no argument here. That said, the _one_ thing I really wish

Re: Making Xorg easier to test (was Re: [git pull] drm request 3)

2010-03-05 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 07:53:46 -0800 (PST) Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote: On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Carlos R. Mafra wrote: Whereas everytime I wanted to do that with Xorg it was such a pain that I want to keep away from that mess. Actually, take it from me: Xorg is

Re: Making Xorg easier to test (was Re: [git pull] drm request 3)

2010-03-05 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Daniel Stone wrote: FWIW, Option ModulePath in xorg.conf lets you more or less do this; the usual approach is to install your new server + drivers into a separate prefix. The thing is, Xorg has - and I think for _very_ good reasons - deprecated using xorg.conf at all.