Is xgl considered dead?

[Matthias Hopf]

On Apr 12, 07 01:08:21 +0200, Hanno Böck wrote:
> xgl-development seems to be pretty much dead. There haven't been much commits 
> lately and as far as I can see, just about everything in the past months only 
> were compile-fixes.

This is mainly because it's working pretty well. There are some issues,
of course, but David is currently mainly focusing on compiz. There
aren't many other contributors to Xgl, and advancing compiz is more
important ATM.

AFAIK the xgl branch should be integrated in the main branch soon, and I
think this work is going on.

> Pretty much everyone suggests to prefer aiglx. Nvidia has their own 

This very much depends on who you ask.

> xegl, which was once announced as the future of xgl, is even more dead and 
> probably not running anywhere.

Xegl is in a sad state, yes.

> Now, from what I see, there are two reasons left why someone might want to 
> have xgl:
> a) if you rely on proprietary ati-driver
> b) aiglx doesn't allow transformation of xv and gl-apps

Pretty much, yes.

Matthias

-- 
Matthias Hopf <mhopf at suse.de>      __        __   __
Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg   (_   | |  (_   |__          mat at mshopf.de
Phone +49-911-74053-715           __)  |_|  __)  |__  R & D   www.mshopf.de