On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 07:50:46PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Sun, 2006-08-27 at 13:06 +0000, David Nusinow wrote:
> Are you seriously arguing that's the only significant upstream > improvement in 7.1 vs. 7.0? Come on, you know that this is just a small example. I'm not trying to belittle anyone's work. All I want is to ship 7.1 with etch, and if that means I have to make concessions then so be it. Would you have preferred shipping 7.0? > > I didn't realize I needed to ask for permission for such things. If the > > -ignoreABI option didn't already exist, I wouldn't have done so. I didn't > > really add anything new, I just provided a new way to get at it. > > Once the option is in xorg.conf and things work, people will tend to > forget about the option even when it's not really needed anymore. Then > when the ABI breaks again, that gets ignored, potentially causing all > kinds of weird behaviour resulting in spurious bug reports that will > waste the time of and potentially confuse bug triagers, unless they add > the option to the already too long list of gotchas to watch out for. Let me make this perfectly clear: This is not an option I like. I know it's a huge problem to be able to ignore the ABI. But I didn't add anything new. People would have modified their startx or gdm startup script or whatever to run with -ignoreABI, and then they wouldn't have fixed them later, which would have caused the same problems. I wasn't willing to add a new feature to the loader that would ignore the ABI, but just a new config file entry was fine. Note that I was, at one point, asked if I could make -ignoreABI the default. What I did was a compromise. > > Also, if you want to remove it from upstream, go ahead, but I'd like > > to discuss it first. > > Ah, so removing it requires discussion, but adding it didn't? Well, removing a feature that someone else added is generally something that should be discussed in my opinion. You're removing my work by removing it, so I feel we should discuss it. By adding the feature, I didn't remove anyone else's work. > > I don't really love the option myself, but it'll very likely be a > > patch that we have to carry around for a while in Debian if it doesn't > > go upstream. > > I don't understand why, given that there is a compatible third party > release now. Yes, I'm very strongly considering disabling it for etch. But I want to keep the patch around simply so that I don't have to re-make it in a year and a half if this issue comes up again. > Even without that, the Debian packaging of the older > releases should have been able to arrange for -ignoreABI getting passed > to the X server when necessary. How? I looked in to automagically ignoring just the ABI mismatch of the nvidia binary driver, but it didn't look clean. I'd love to hear better suggestions. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
