Kevin Kofler wrote:
In short, it's a major change with only modest benefit, and a better
solution is coming soon.
And what IS that "better solution"?
Parallel repositories that actually work and are easy for me to
maintain. Which rebuilding all of X for FC5 would not be, due to all
the fails-to-build-in-mock bugs fixed between then and now.
IMHO, this sets a really bad precedent. Do we really want Fedora to become the
next Debian Stable? Many users on the list have indicated they are running
Fedora precisely because they want current software, not obsolete crap which
happens to cooperate well with proprietary software, which as you say is not
even supported. I must say I'm one of these people. For those who don't want
version upgrades, there are plenty of other distros available (e.g. that U word
everyone gets spammed with these days ;-) but there are others too).
If you ever find me unpleasantly bound by precedent, kindly thwap me.
If I'm not mistaken, the new X.Org brings support for some Intel chipsets which
are only currently supported by generic VESA drivers.
945 support is in xorg-x11-drv-i810 1.5.1, which is in updates-testing
currently. The new 965 chips only work in 1.6.4 and later, which I have
no intention of trying to backport to FC5.
Do we really want their
users to suffer because of NVidia? It could also help free some users from
having to use proprietary drivers (think r300 improvements...). (If it had
been out earlier, before the ATI driver got upgraded, it might even have FORCED
some people to switch to r300, which could have either shown them how well it
works already or helped getting it in shape, depending on how well it would
have worked for them. But it's too late for that now.)
Let's make this crystal clear:
I do not care about ABI stability for out of tree drivers in Fedora.
Backporting all of 7.1 to FC5 is simply more work than it's worth.
- ajax
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
