more MAXSCREENS patches

Peter Hutterer peter.hutterer at
Wed Jun 2 15:52:07 PDT 2010

On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 11:15:30AM -0700, Jamey Sharp wrote:
> Thanks for reviewing, Tiago! I'd like to address the Xvfb questions
> first before getting to your review comments...
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 08:39:35PM +0300, Tiago Vignatti wrote:
> > And I wouldn't care about dummy video driver being broken, really - let's
> > squash it and void input driver within the server and delete xvfb. But other
> > conservative guys might have different opinions here. 
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 10:53:30AM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> > Certainly those who build on platforms that the XFree86 DDX isn't currently
> > built/supported on, such as MacOS X & Cygwin, should be consulted before you
> > take Xvfb away from them.   Or were you going to fix the Xorg server to build
> > on their platforms first?
> When I first proposed this, I didn't realize that the xfree86 DDX wasn't
> usable on OS X and Windows. In fact I still don't understand why it
> isn't, but haven't had a chance to dig into that question.
> So, yes. I think I'd like to see the xfree86 DDX made usable on all
> platforms that have active maintainers; in parallel, factor out common
> code between Xvfb/Xfake/dummy and between Xnest/Xephyr/Xdmx; and
> finally, unify those servers as drivers for the xfree86 DDX. That's not
> going to happen this week though. ;-)
> Merging the video-dummy and input-void drivers into the xserver tree is
> an independent question, and I'd still like to see that happen in 1.9. I
> don't think any of the arguments for keeping drivers out-of-tree apply
> to these two.

why do we even need the void driver these days? with the input rework since
1.4 we don't have a requirement for any devices anymore since the DIX will
hardcode the VCP and VCK. AFAICT, the void driver's raison d'être is that we
couldn't start up without input devices for a long time.


More information about the xorg-devel mailing list