Status of xserver/debrix/modular tree?

[Lars Knoll]

On Thursday 10 February 2005 15:39, Ely Levy wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Carl Worth wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 04:34:03 +0100, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> > > Toolkits (QT and GTK) are not helping out too.  GTK appears
> > > to be moving to Cairo, while Trolltech said they would have
> > > used XCB if it was ready in time for QT 4.0.
> >
> > I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. You claim
> > that QT and GTK are not "helping out", and then provide as evidence
> > the fact that GTK and QT are both working with two very interesting
> > new pieces of X-related infrastructure, (cairo and XCB). The evidence
> > seems to support a conclusion that the toolkits are quite aware of
> > what's going on and are participating.

We're very much aware of these developments here and would for example love to 
move Qt over to XCB at some point. But to be able to do so I would first like 
to see Xlib being moved over to XCB. An XCB based Xlib is currently a 
prerequisite for being able to do this.

There are several reasons for this. First it makes the transition a lot 
easier, as we could gradually replace XLib by XCB. another big reason is that 
several other libraries Qt relies on are still Xlib based. One of the more 
prominent examples are the GL libraries.

> The question people don't know the answer to is when xcb would be done?
> years?months?days?which is why no one can plan ahead.
> If we go and say ok xcb would be included in the next version of X
> (yea yea not 6.8.x), then toolkits would start moving to it, if we'll just
> suddeny add it it would take them a long time to respond.
> BTW anyone know how xcb is doing?they are the only project who gave no
> answer about puting the cia script in their cvs so I cant even see the
> commits normally;)

I tried using the XCB based Xlib a while ago as a basis for Qt, and it worked 
very nicely and apart from the missing XIM implementation I couldn't find any 
bigger issues.

Cheers,
Lars