Modular X.org and the Unichrome forks.
unichrome at shipmail.org
Fri Dec 23 02:30:10 PST 2005
Luc Verhaegen wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:38:26AM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
>>Adam Jackson wrote:
>>>On Thursday 22 December 2005 13:10, Alan Cox wrote:
>>>I have no desire to turn a choice among two drivers into a choice among
>>>three. If Xorg ships effectively the stable branch of one or the other
>>>project, then we're creating driver number 3. We _had_ to do this for 7.0
>>>because we had to have parity with 6.9. Doing it again in the 7.1
>>>timeframe is mistake unless, and only unless, the driver we ship as part
>>>of the 7.1 katamari is clearly superior to either of the other two in
>>I think the situation needs to be clarified, and X.org needs to make a
>>decision on how to proceed.
>>The openChrome project was not started by me, although I have been the
>>most active developer lately, but by the people wanting continued
>>support for their Unichrome Pro chips and for XvMC. It is based on the
>>code currently in Xorg with some additions for backwards compatibility
>>and unstable development like EXA support and Xv DMA transfer.
>>Development is currently focusing on EXA HW composite acceleration and
>>XvMC mpeg4 acceleration.
>>The reason for almost all developers leaving the unichrome.sf.net
>>project one by one had very little to do with technical disagreement.
>>For those few interested in gossip, I think the Unichrome mailing list
>>archives are still open. It had more to do with people having enough of
>>and wanting to be nowhere near statements like this:
>>I still think all developers involved agree technically on where the
>>driver needs to go. There is a disagreement on how to get there, since
>>there are people prioritizing usability and people prioritizing code
>>cleanups no matter what price is paid.
>>Recapping what's been said previously in this thread everybody seems to
>>be favouring usability. This currently rules out replacing the existing
>>via driver with the unichrome driver since it, in addition to what's
>>been said earlier, also lacks support for Unichrome Pro modes, tv-out,
>>and Xv, the latter requiring quite some effort to fix. I think Alan Cox
>>clearly outlined what is going to happen if the via driver is removed
>>The other option (if conflicting commits are feared) is to appoint a
>>maintainer for the driver who OKs or denies the commits. I think it has
>>been pretty clear from the list discussions that there are to be no
>>usability reversions unless _really_ motivated. I'd happily accept any
>>qualified maintainer who agrees to follow those recommendations. Even Luc.
>>Finally, to Luc, If lack of hardware is the reason for not extending
>>your cleanups to Unichrome Pro, the offer of a CN400 board is still
>>there. No VIA money involved.
>What you said last time was:
>About the very last bit, you, and Ivor Hewitt and Andreas Robinson,
>should've thought about that before:
>- You all criticised me for being that verbose about very much needed
>hardware donations (which i became after a release had been postponed
>for several weeks due to no-one having the hardware to test a serious
>problem report). Donations btw, which i have only ever been willing to
>accept from commercial users (i have sinned: the only hardware i didn't
>pay for my self is the discarded CH7019B daughterboard from an Acer
>- You all so eagerly pounced on the resulting donations.
>- You all left shortly after.
Umm, not really, I have never received any hardware donations except a
loaner I had to return. That offer I just gave you I'd have to pay for
>I'm sure that this sort of mudthrowing can continue for quite a long
>time. And i'm very sure that i can rebutt most of it in more lengthy and
>in the end pretty irrelevant ways.
I was trying to be constructive....
>Now, what i am not sure about is why you are so eager to keep things in
>tree. Surely openchrome.org is the most popular project, surely it has
>all the features your users want. What are you afraid of?
... in a way most users would benefit from ...
>X is modular. I don't see us come to terms any time soon. This
>flamewar has gone on long enough. Maybe it's time to choose the option
>that is most acceptable to most people and go back to doing something
... but never mind.
More information about the xorg