xorg7.3 [was: 7.0 preview slides]

[Peter Jeremy]

On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 11:41:32PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote:
>The situation was that our import of 7.2 was delayed as we tested and
>retested and retested, to get the framework working for the modular
>code and ensure as few regressions as possible.

Thank you for that.  I think it's unfortunate that X.org has decided
to stop bothering with integration testing themselves but am glad
that the FreeBSD ports team were able to do this for 7.2.

>It seems as though 7.3 is better for some people and worse for others.

Having followed X within FreeBSD from XFree86 3.1.2 through to X.org
7.3, I can safely say that X.org 7.3 is by far the worst version as
far as POLA violations and regressions are concerned.  I don't recall
seeing anyone mention "better", though possibly those people aren't
making a fuss.  It is difficult to understand how an "update" that
broke generic features like xkb LEDs, xdm and mouse scrolling, as well
as ati, mga and nv drivers (that I've personally used) could be
considered an improvement.  I agree that the problem with xkb LEDs has
been corrected, xdm has been partially fixed and I believe the nv
problem has been fixed and there is an unofficial patch to work-around
the MGA BIOS problem but this leaves the following regressions that
I've noticed so far:
generic:
- Updating xdm over-writes local modifications
- Impossible to disable wired-in modelines in the X-server
ati (Radeon X200M):
- VTY/X11 switching is dodgier (corrupts the screen more frequently)
- system clock gets screwed up (it can lose several seconds) during a
  VTY/X11 switch
- DPMS display off/on can corrupt the display
- The X-server often abort()s on shutdown
mga (G550):
- Impossible to specify a default initial resolution
- HW cursor is broken
- DPMS is broken
(I can't currently test the systems with nVIDIA chipsets)

>In any case, as soon as 7.3 was out, I'm sure xorg lost interest in
>bug reports about 7.2, and people were already asking us when the
>next version was going to be in.

I think it's unfortunate that X.org didn't spend more time testing
X.org 7.3 before releasing it.  Hopefully X.org 7.4 will see an
improvement in quality.

I agree that the FreeBSD Project is not responsible for the shambles
that was released by X.org but X.org 7.3 is definitely nowhere near
the quality of the FreeBSD core software or the vast majority of
ports.  Unfortunately, IMHO releasing FreeBSD 6.3 or 7.0 with X.org in
its current state _will_ adversely impact the general perception of
the FreeBSD Project.

I don't believe it's feasible to roll back to X.org 7.2 so in the
short term (for the upcoming FreeBSD releases) about all that can be
done is to try and locate and apply fixes for the various regressions.

The solution for the longer term is unclear - the FreeBSD ports system
can't really handle a '-devel' variant of modular X.org - it comprises
too many ports.  At the same time, the normal X.org ports can't be
used for beta code because too many people will wind up running that
code, courtesy of portupgrade or similar.  Maybe the GNOME or KDE
groups have some suggestions on how to handle integration testing of
large ports collections without adversely affecting the ports tree.

-- 
Peter
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-x11/attachments/20071105/9300403e/attachment.pgp