Problems with and incompatibilities with in-house software

Richard Brown rbrown1445 at
Sun Feb 28 17:28:57 PST 2010

Russell Shaw wrote:
> Richard Brown wrote:
>> Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
>>> Twas brillig at 19:05:25 28.02.2010 UTC-05 when rbrown1445 at 
>>> 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.
>> 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.
> What are you referring to by "Ximage" ?
Ximage extension to the X server. It has been superceded by MIT shared 
memory. However, some ancient apps may still use it.

>> 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 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.
> _______________________________________________
> xorg mailing list
> xorg at

More information about the xorg mailing list