On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Branden Robinson wrote:
> What exactly *is* going on with IPv6 support these days? I understand
> it's caused a lot of grief for X.Org and XFree86 4.4, crazy breakage in
> xdm and stuff. But maybe things have settled down.
Yes i have been following the development for a whi
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 08:57:47PM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> Hi Juliusz,
> thanks for the information. Im already in the process of
> testing the patches based on DanielS X4.3 packageds and fixing a bunch of
> small issues to prepare a more complete report to the X people
Fabio,
Just to let you know that 4.3.0 is out, and this is the right time to
take your patches upstream. If you're still interested in pursuing
the matter, please go to www.xfree86.org, subscribe to the devel
mailing list, and start the discussion.
I am looking forwards to seeing you there.
Hi Juliusz,
thanks for the information. Im already in the process of
testing the patches based on DanielS X4.3 packageds and fixing a bunch of
small issues to prepare a more complete report to the X people. I already
subscribed there since a while. I hope to get the support from al
Fabio,
Just to let you know that 4.3.0 is out, and this is the right time to
take your patches upstream. If you're still interested in pursuing
the matter, please go to www.xfree86.org, subscribe to the devel
mailing list, and start the discussion.
I am looking forwards to seeing you there.
Hi Juliusz,
thanks for the information. Im already in the process of
testing the patches based on DanielS X4.3 packageds and fixing a bunch of
small issues to prepare a more complete report to the X people. I already
subscribed there since a while. I hope to get the support from al
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 08:56:09AM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I'm not trying to sound hostile about it, it's just that it would be a
> > very rude thing to do to our users.
>
> ?? I did never read your messages as hostile. Yuo have been e
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 08:56:09AM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I'm not trying to sound hostile about it, it's just that it would be a
> > very rude thing to do to our users.
>
> ?? I did never read your messages as hostile. Yuo have been e
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 08:56:09AM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 10:59:25PM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> >
> > I'm not trying to sound hostile about it, it's just that it would be a
> > very rude thing to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 10:59:25PM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
>
> I'm not trying to sound hostile about it, it's just that it would be a
> very rude thing to do to our users.
?? I did never read
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 08:56:09AM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 10:59:25PM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> >
> > I'm not trying to sound hostile about it, it's just that it would be a
> > very rude thing to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 10:59:25PM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
>
> I'm not trying to sound hostile about it, it's just that it would be a
> very rude thing to do to our users.
?? I did never read
On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 10:59:25PM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I will not have Debian's XFree86 packages break protocol compatibility
> > with upstream XFree86.
>
> Of course this is a very very good argument perfectly understandable.
I'm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 07:39:16PM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> > I hope this will make some things more clear about the IPv6 status.
> [...]
> > At this point in time I would suggest to proceed
On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 10:59:25PM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I will not have Debian's XFree86 packages break protocol compatibility
> > with upstream XFree86.
>
> Of course this is a very very good argument perfectly understandable.
I'm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 07:39:16PM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> > I hope this will make some things more clear about the IPv6 status.
> [...]
> > At this point in time I would suggest to proceed
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 07:39:16PM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> I hope this will make some things more clear about the IPv6 status.
[...]
> At this point in time I would suggest to proceed with inclusion and be
> ready to merge with 4.3.0, test and send upstream. More than rejecting the
>
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 07:39:16PM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> I hope this will make some things more clear about the IPv6 status.
[...]
> At this point in time I would suggest to proceed with inclusion and be
> ready to merge with 4.3.0, test and send upstream. More than rejecting the
>
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > PS I was not able to search too much on INRIA and on the university of
> > Paris (as suggested) for the simple reason that 99% of the pages I found
> > are in french.
>
> Eh?
>
> Typing ``X11R6 IPv6 INRIA'' in Google gives the following English pa
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > PS I was not able to search too much on INRIA and on the university of
> > Paris (as suggested) for the simple reason that 99% of the pages I found
> > are in french.
>
> Eh?
>
> Typing ``X11R6 IPv6 INRIA'' in Google gives the following English pa
> PS I was not able to search too much on INRIA and on the university of
> Paris (as suggested) for the simple reason that 99% of the pages I found
> are in french.
Eh?
Typing ``X11R6 IPv6 INRIA'' in Google gives the following English page
as the third hit:
http://www.ipv6.org/impl/inria.html
> PS I was not able to search too much on INRIA and on the university of
> Paris (as suggested) for the simple reason that 99% of the pages I found
> are in french.
Eh?
Typing ``X11R6 IPv6 INRIA'' in Google gives the following English page
as the third hit:
http://www.ipv6.org/impl/inria.html
I hope this will make some things more clear about the IPv6 status.
x.org just claims that R6.7 will support it. I wasn't able to access their
cvs, possibly my fault) so im do not know their real status.
xfree86.org placed 4.3.0 in features freeze the 30th of Novemeber so
basically it means that
I hope this will make some things more clear about the IPv6 status.
x.org just claims that R6.7 will support it. I wasn't able to access their
cvs, possibly my fault) so im do not know their real status.
xfree86.org placed 4.3.0 in features freeze the 30th of Novemeber so
basically it means that
On Sunday 15 December 2002 02:24 pm, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> I would suggest that you should wait until Sun publish their code, and
> if then you think that yours is better (which it might very well be)
> try to get upstream to use yours.
Don't wait to publish your code upstream. If you wait, y
> However, it does seem to imply that there is a risk of non-inter-
> operable X11 implementations if your patches get in. I'd be very
> surprised if upstream accepted an IPv6 implementation (from you or
> from somewhere else) before they see Sun's code.
from a very fast investigation X.org only
FMDN> I was not aware of other implementations when i started merging and
FMDN> working on this one (talking about Sun and INRIA). Are they publically
FMDN> available?? any URL??
Fabio,
The INRIA implementation is but a vague memory. I don't think that
Sun's implementation is available to the ge
One Sun engineer claimed on the XFree86 lists that the IPv6
implementation required a minor protocol change. Of course, this may
have been mere bragging (of the ``look, we've done some really hard
work''), or else an indication of how they like to do complicated
things when it's not needed. (Yes,
On Sunday 15 December 2002 02:24 pm, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> I would suggest that you should wait until Sun publish their code, and
> if then you think that yours is better (which it might very well be)
> try to get upstream to use yours.
Don't wait to publish your code upstream. If you wait, y
> However, it does seem to imply that there is a risk of non-inter-
> operable X11 implementations if your patches get in. I'd be very
> surprised if upstream accepted an IPv6 implementation (from you or
> from somewhere else) before they see Sun's code.
from a very fast investigation X.org only
FMDN> I was not aware of other implementations when i started merging and
FMDN> working on this one (talking about Sun and INRIA). Are they publically
FMDN> available?? any URL??
Fabio,
The INRIA implementation is but a vague memory. I don't think that
Sun's implementation is available to the ge
One Sun engineer claimed on the XFree86 lists that the IPv6
implementation required a minor protocol change. Of course, this may
have been mere bragging (of the ``look, we've done some really hard
work''), or else an indication of how they like to do complicated
things when it's not needed. (Yes,
On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, Guido Guenther wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 08:20:30AM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> > No there is no risk at all. Once X.org will release IPv6 upstream this
> > patch set will be obsolete and can be removed. I do not see much
> > more than: X11R6.7 will include
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 08:20:30AM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> No there is no risk at all. Once X.org will release IPv6 upstream this
> patch set will be obsolete and can be removed. I do not see much
> more than: X11R6.7 will include IPv6. and this let me think they will
> more or less
On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, Guido Guenther wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 08:20:30AM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> > No there is no risk at all. Once X.org will release IPv6 upstream this
> > patch set will be obsolete and can be removed. I do not see much
> > more than: X11R6.7 will include
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 08:20:30AM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> No there is no risk at all. Once X.org will release IPv6 upstream this
> patch set will be obsolete and can be removed. I do not see much
> more than: X11R6.7 will include IPv6. and this let me think they will
> more or less
On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, Guido Guenther wrote:
> Thats great! Did you bother to check what x.org did already about IPv6?
> As far as I know they plan to put it into their next release and XFree86
> syncs with these releases fairly quickly, so we might end up with two
> different implementations.
> Reg
On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, Guido Guenther wrote:
> Thats great! Did you bother to check what x.org did already about IPv6?
> As far as I know they plan to put it into their next release and XFree86
> syncs with these releases fairly quickly, so we might end up with two
> different implementations.
> Reg
Hi Fabio,
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 11:59:01PM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> here is the link where you can download the set of patches to
> include IPv6 support for XFree86. I have placed a link for the simple
Thats great! Did you bother to check what x.org did already about IPv6?
As
Hi Fabio,
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 11:59:01PM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> here is the link where you can download the set of patches to
> include IPv6 support for XFree86. I have placed a link for the simple
Thats great! Did you bother to check what x.org did already about IPv6?
As
This means that patch 990 is under a "kame" license included in the patch
itself. All the others does not need a license since Pierfrancesco and I
decided to relase them as free as possible so that inclusion should not be
a problem.
Fabio
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Warren Turkal wrote:
> On Friday 13
This means that patch 990 is under a "kame" license included in the patch
itself. All the others does not need a license since Pierfrancesco and I
decided to relase them as free as possible so that inclusion should not be
a problem.
Fabio
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Warren Turkal wrote:
> On Friday 13
On Friday 13 December 2002 04:59 pm, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> I didn't put any license on my patches and the kame license
> looks ok to me (it is included in the patch).
Does this mean that they are under the X license or is there a "kame" license?
Warren
--
Treasurer, GOLUM, Inc.
http://ww
Package: xfree86
Version: 4.2.1-4; reported 2002-12-13
Severity: wishlist
Tags: sid patch
Hi Branden,
here is the link where you can download the set of patches to
include IPv6 support for XFree86. I have placed a link for the simple
reason that a couple of them are quite big (yeah let's
On Friday 13 December 2002 04:59 pm, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> I didn't put any license on my patches and the kame license
> looks ok to me (it is included in the patch).
Does this mean that they are under the X license or is there a "kame" license?
Warren
--
Treasurer, GOLUM, Inc.
http://ww
Package: xfree86
Version: 4.2.1-4; reported 2002-12-13
Severity: wishlist
Tags: sid patch
Hi Branden,
here is the link where you can download the set of patches to
include IPv6 support for XFree86. I have placed a link for the simple
reason that a couple of them are quite big (yeah let's
46 matches
Mail list logo
