Problems with X.org and incompatibilities with in-house software

[Richard Brown]

Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
> Twas brillig at 19:05:25 28.02.2010 UTC-05 when rbrown1445 at gmail.com did
> gyre and gimble:
>
>  RB> So of these disabled, removed extensions. How many of these are
>  RB> disabled as a result of actual broken code, vs, how many are
>  RB> disabled because, "we don't like how it looks"?
>
> Most of them were removed because they were broken for years (literally)
> and nobody complained.
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> xorg mailing list
> xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
If the extensions are removed because of broken code, i can understand, 
especially for the extensions which have duplicitous functionality which 
can be obtained by using other X11 features, i do not ask for time to 
expended to get broken code working.

But, if the extensions are in working order, there is no reason or 
justification to remove them, even if their functionality is duplicated, 
different applications may be tied to a certain API. "We dont like how 
it looks" is not a good reason to remove extensions.

Xprint, was this actually broken code, for instance. Ximage, was this 
broken code? XEVIE, again, was that broken code.

If the extension is broken code, dont waste your time, Im not asking you 
to spend time on it, we will do our best here to move off of them. But, 
if the extension is in working order, why not put it back in?

To justify removing an extension, the extension needs to be in a broken, 
non working order, and that it is causing technical problems for the 
rest of the X system,  and to require extensive reworking, and apps can 
implement what it needs in another way. "We dont like how it looks", or 
"we dont think people use this", are not good justifications.

Since X.org officially has had all of these extensions until very 
recently, apparently although they may have been in a non working state, 
at the same time, they were not causing a problem, so I cannot see the 
action as being justified to remove them.