| 1 |
2011/5/9 Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o>: |
| 2 |
> maybe your answer is in the readme :) |
| 3 |
> http://www.splitted-desktop.com/~gbeauchesne/libva/patches/000_README |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> some of them are needed, some of them are useful, some we could certainly |
| 6 |
> drop. If the most important patches could go upstream then, again, I'm all for |
| 7 |
> going to fdo, but I'm not that enthusiastic about it (e.g. fdo git still |
| 8 |
> installs the test programs, they make """releases""" that don't even build, |
| 9 |
> etc...). |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> If it's for maintaining my own patchset with the sds patches then I prefer |
| 12 |
> using sds directly :) We could start excluding some sds patches to stop |
| 13 |
> applying them, bringing us closer to fdo though, it's just I don't see the |
| 14 |
> need. Feel free to propose me somes to drop with justifications ;) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The most obvious thing about the SDS version is that the last release |
| 17 |
was 24-Feb-2011. There looks to be a number of fixes in the FDO |
| 18 |
version that, given the last release was in February of SDS libva, |
| 19 |
haven't made it to the SDS version. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
We can certainly fix the FDO version to our liking and push things |
| 22 |
back upstream, and since FDO actually is upstream, this seems to make |
| 23 |
sense. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
So, it only seems reasonable to (1) move to the FDO version, (2) fix |
| 26 |
and commit fixes for stupid things like installing test programs. |
| 27 |
We're not doing much to maintain the software if we just rely on some |
| 28 |
guy to patch it for us, I think. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Matt |
Archives