Ray Lehtiniemi rayl at mail.com
Mon Sep 6 11:08:57 PDT 2004

On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 08:38:47PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> Let's clarify: there exists work in debrix beyond the autotoolery.  However 
> the autotooled build bits can be hoisted out and the source tree repopulated 
> from the monolith.  In this sense, the makefile bits treat the source as an 
> opaque object.

ok, cool.  that makes things a heck of a lot easier.

so what is the future of imake once x.org is autotooled? does imake go away
at that point?

> > is debrix the main focus for the immediate future?
> It is if people want it to be.  The tired, poor, huddled Debian masses 
> yearning to run Xorg probably want it to be.  The question is who else does.
> Right now, "the debrix people" consists of Daniel, Jakub, and myself.  The 
> build system proper is mostly just grunt work to get working; it's just that 
> no one else has stepped up to work on it.  I'm not really interested in 
> hacking the build system, but I'll do it, because it needs doing.  The work 
> would go significantly faster if we had more hands.

i've done some automakery in the past, so i can grab a copy of the debrix
code and have a look.  i'll need to set aside some time to study tla
first though.

> > what other large projects are scheduled for inclusion in the near term?
> I can't speak to that for anyone besides myself.  I will say that most of my 
> near-term projects involve improving life by removing code (bugs #400 and 
> #1245, destroying GLcore, ...).

how effective is the xorg bugzilla?  seems like about 85% of the open bugs
in the system are still in the new state, and some are a year or more old.
OTOH, looks like usage has approximately tripled in the last few months,
based on searching for modified bugs per month.

i guess what i'm asking is, if i want to find out where the current areas
of interest and concern are, is my time better spent combing mailing
list archives, the bugzilla database, or both?

> That, and making the build system work is for the most part a mechanical 
> process.  The build system will take care of itself, because whichever one 
> people decide to use has to work.  I certainly don't want to see code work 
> halted in favor of non-code work.

i guess i look at things a bit differently... i see the "non-code" build
work to be (at least) as important as the actual code work.  if it's not
easy to pick up the code, build it, and see how things work, nobody is
going to want to make the effort required to climb the learning curve to
do any "real work"...

that said, i certainly agree that both types of development have to continue
in parallel, without blocking each other.

>  Probably what will happen is we'll get the 
> new build process to a beta stage, then ask people to restrict their changes 
> to things that don't add or delete files or alter Imakefilery.  Then 
> eventually, lock the xc tree to commits, blow away the debrix source, 
> repopulate from the monolithic tree, and dub the result the Xorg modular 
> build system.

any idea how long it might take to get to this point?

     Ray L   <rayl at mail.com>

More information about the xorg mailing list