| 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. |
Archives