[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Require xserver 1.3

Carl Worth cworth at cworth.org
Mon Apr 20 19:35:10 CEST 2009

On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 20:43 +0200, Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Le 17/04/2009 22:13, Eric Anholt a écrit :
> > OK, but do you need this for building 2.8 on RHEL5?  Or can we safely
> > delete?  My opinion at this point is that for 2.8 (june) we should
> > remove pre-server 1.6 support as nobody would be shipping 2.8 against a
> > server older than that.
> For the record, we (Gentoo) just got around to shipping 1.5.3 as a 
> stable X. Would it be hard to maintain 2.7 as a "longer than usual" 
> stable branch? Would I be the only downstream maintainer interested in that?
> I'm just speaking hypothetically here, since I definitely want Gentoo to 
> catch up to current X versions instead of lagging a year (or four) behind.

I think you're exactly right that 2.7 will keep seeing 2.7.x maintenance
releases for longer than usual.

That almost has to happen when there's a bunch of compatibility-breaking
changes happening on the mainline, (like we're talking about for 2.8).
So I think distributors should be happy that we recognize that there's
going to be a real need to land fixes onto 2.7 for some time in the

And obviously, everybody is welcome to work together on any of that
backporting onto the 2.7 branch. Please feel free to note anything you
see that you'd like cherry-picked here:

	Tracking bug for xf86-video-intel 2.7.x releases

(That bug is also currently pointed at by the "intel-2d-release" alias.)


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/attachments/20090420/3bbd7385/attachment.sig>

More information about the Intel-gfx mailing list