1 |
On Monday, May 09, 2011 12:25:18 PM Matt Turner wrote: |
2 |
> 2011/4/29 Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o>: |
3 |
> > 2011/3/9 Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o>: |
4 |
> >> As for the reasons: "its the fdo version + a debian/patches dir with, |
5 |
> >> heh, some fixes and improvements I'm using..." |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > So, the SDS version is simply the freedesktop version with a few |
8 |
> > patches on top? So, the freedesktop version is actually... upstream? |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > We patch plenty of things in Gentoo. Why are we depending on SDS to do |
11 |
> > that for us? |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > Matt |
14 |
> |
15 |
> So...? Why are we shipping this version when it seems to be just the |
16 |
> upstream version + patches? People on the X11 team already have commit |
17 |
> access to freedesktop, and by extension, libva, so if the patches are |
18 |
> reasonable we could just commit them ourselves. Why are we bothering |
19 |
> with this SDS version? |
20 |
|
21 |
maybe your answer is in the readme :) |
22 |
http://www.splitted-desktop.com/~gbeauchesne/libva/patches/000_README |
23 |
|
24 |
some of them are needed, some of them are useful, some we could certainly |
25 |
drop. If the most important patches could go upstream then, again, I'm all for |
26 |
going to fdo, but I'm not that enthusiastic about it (e.g. fdo git still |
27 |
installs the test programs, they make """releases""" that don't even build, |
28 |
etc...). |
29 |
|
30 |
If it's for maintaining my own patchset with the sds patches then I prefer |
31 |
using sds directly :) We could start excluding some sds patches to stop |
32 |
applying them, bringing us closer to fdo though, it's just I don't see the |
33 |
need. Feel free to propose me somes to drop with justifications ;) |
34 |
|
35 |
|
36 |
> |
37 |
> You weren't kidding about not being on IRC. !seen aballier says 7 months |
38 |
> ago. |
39 |
|
40 |
Heh ;) |
41 |
|
42 |
A. |