2008/5/21 Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx>: > No, the point is that it is a pre-release version of X, shipped will full > knowledge that it will break binary drivers that no reasonable person would > expect to be modified to match yet. I don't know where to start with the logical fallacies in this but ... It's not "prerelease" in any sense except "the release not hasn't gone out yet". The upstream developers want this shipped, and have decided the ABI is complete. It could have been labelled "1.5" and the same thing would still be happening. It doesn't "break" binary drivers. Binary drivers compiled to work with an older version need modification to work correctly with it, but so do all the ones included with it and ... they have been, as they were available to modify. A reasonable person with knowledge of the development process would know about the "breakage" ahead of time and could have done the work to port their driver to the new, slightly modified interface (the changes are incremental for the most part, and the majority of the APIs and ABIs involved haven't really changed that much at all). They did have knowledge of all this (the X development community is hardly close-lipped about the changes; there are regular "heads up" type messages from e.g. Keith Packard about the changes to RandR and so on). This means that in actual fact, you are complaining (loudly) about the failure of nVidia to provide updated drivers for you new distribution, and expect "us" to provide "you" with a Fedora 9 but without the new graphics functionality which apparently a lot of people want. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
