=== rodarvus [n=rodarvus@ubuntu/member/rodarvus]  has joined #ubuntu-x
=== rodarvus [n=rodarvus@ubuntu/member/rodarvus]  has joined #ubuntu-x
=== fabbione [i=fabbione@gordian.fabbione.net]  has joined #ubuntu-x
[02:29] <rodarvus> guys, as you might (or not :) ) know, I'm working on X.Org 7.1 packages, currently
[02:29] <Mithrandir> you're basing those off the 7.1 packages in Debian?
[02:29] <rodarvus> Debian has *very* little done, until now, and gravity will be away for the next two weeks (and has no plans to touch X.Org 7.1 until then)
[02:30] <Mithrandir> hmm, ok.
[02:30] <rodarvus> so, yes, I'm basing on their work
[02:30] <rodarvus> but very little has been done
[02:30] <rodarvus> I was wondering if it makes sense to try to collaborate with them right now - meaning contacting someone at XSF, and try to push our packages directly to experimental
[02:30] <rodarvus> and sync them into ubuntu, from there
[02:31] <rodarvus> (this is question #1)
[02:31] <Kamion> political advice: don't talk about it as "pushing our packages"
[02:31] <rodarvus> also, I noted that many of the packages that are "part" of X.Org 7.1 are already outdated - for example, libx11 (for 7.1) is 1.0.1 - current version is 1.0.3
[02:32] <Kamion> also, there are still differences, so presumably the versions in experimental would have to be based on existing Debian packaging, not on existing Ubuntu packaging
[02:32] <rodarvus> do you think it is a problem for us to go directly to 1.0.3? (and be "newer" than 7.1 in some packages)
[02:32] <rodarvus> the same operation would happen in many other packages too
[02:32] <Kamion> that's not to say collaboration doesn't make sense of course - I think it does, if possible
[02:32] <Kamion> rodarvus: case-by-case, I'd say
[02:33] <Kamion> depends on what's in 1.0.3
[02:33] <rodarvus> *nods*, I agree its a case-by-case
[02:33] <rodarvus> Kamion: also, thanks for the advice on collaboration with Debian :)
[02:34] <Kamion> I wouldn't expect it to be intrinsically a problem to go to newer versions, if the changes are reasonable and not API/ABI-complex
[02:34] <rodarvus> dangerous territory :P
[02:37] <Mithrandir> I'd be very scared if Xorg broke the libX11 ABI.
[02:39] <Kamion> http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=xorg-lib-libX11;a=log;h=99c711707ad08e1396e123b1c7df687c560a489a shows at least some security fixes between 1.0.1 and 1.0.3
[02:39] <fabbione> same soname
[02:40] <fabbione> no abi breakage
[02:40] <Kamion> also one or two changes that might require packaging tweaks
[02:40] <Kamion> (the i18n datadir/libdir stuff)
[02:40] <fabbione> you need to make sure to pull in the proper headers to build libx11
[02:40] <fabbione> otherwise it's not going to build
[02:42] <rodarvus> fabbione: right, I plan to build all new x11proto before
[02:42] <fabbione> ok
[02:42] <rodarvus> before building the rest, I mean
[02:42] <rodarvus> anyhow, I'll do it, then - thanks for the advice, guys!
[02:43] <rodarvus> I'd also like to consider helping XSF directly in the future, but I figure it won't be very likely to happen *right now*, due to time constraints
[02:58] <Kamion> I suspect that collaborating with XSF on this pretty much equates to helping them directly
[02:58] <Kamion> since it won't be a matter of "commit Ubuntu packaging to SVN"
[03:06] <rodarvus> exactly