On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 08:05:12AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > I proposed the lspci -X patch to Martin Mares (pciutils upstream) and he > dislikes it and will not include it upstream. He thinks X should parse > the information it needs from lspci -n, and I'm willing to go along with > that. The X maintainers (in private conversation) have said they do not > currently use the lspci -X option and do not oppose its removal.
The issues lspci -X was attempting to solve was that 'lspci -n' format has changed in the past, breaking the xserver-xfree86.config script, and that 'lspci -n' is hard for humans to convert to -X format. See <http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2004/05/msg00910.html> for more detail about the format change. Does upstream warrant that the 'lspci -n' will not change again in the future ? > The primary purpose of this mail is to make sure that everyone affected > is aware of the decision to remove lspci -X from pciutils 2.2.1-1 and > give them the opportunity to object. The xserver-xorg config script still use "lspci -n" for the same purpose as the xserver-xfree86 one, so the potential of breakage, should the 'lspci -n' output change again, is still there. Furthermore, "lspci -X" allow users to easily compute the correct string needed by the BusID field in the xorg.conf file (and asked by the debconf template). So I would rather suggest to keep "lspci -X" and use it in xserver-xorg.config. A better option might be to implement "lspci -X" in a more generic way that would be acceptable for upstream. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
