Remi's Blog - Latest comments

In response to: Xorg-server 1.7 in ~arch

Octavian [Visitor] — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:33:14 +0000

Just installed xorg 1.7.1.
Am I dreaming or this new xorg is much faster than the 1.6?

Rémi: if you're using the Intel driver, there's a pretty good chance it'll be much faster. 2.9 will even be a little faster when we stabilize it :)

In response to: Response to a comment

dmk [Visitor] — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:29:17 +0000

not to forget, that you can't and shouldn't fix ''upstream'' in the distro. as a distro you just serve ''upstream'' as best as possible to your users. .

In response to: Xorg-server 1.7 in ~arch

Jake [Visitor] — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 02:50:27 +0000

Um.. wow, scratch that last stupid comment I made. Everyone makes typos right?
The newest x11 drivers DO work...

In response to: Xorg-server 1.7 in ~arch

Jake [Visitor] — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 02:05:09 +0000

So... anyone care to shed a light on why none of the x11 drivers work with the new xorg-server? Seems that the dependencies haven't caught up with the newest xorg...

In response to: Response to a comment

Ra [Visitor] — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:05:47 +0000

This is how ~arch has to be. The not infrequently demanded "stability" and problem-free operation of ~arch is ridiculous.

What should be expected is one-two different compiles and possibly running through an automated test suite, not developers wasting his precious time trying to get things polished even BEFORE it hits real installations.
That duty must be moved to the larger amount of installations and the overall massively larger time budget of ~arch users. This is the only efficient way to produce a stable branch, after all...

In response to: Response to a comment

Nirbheek Chauhan [Visitor] — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:26:33 +0000

@Jeremy: I think it varies from arch-to-arch. However, x86 & amd64 are arches that should be easy to find ATs for.

In response to: Response to a comment

Jeremy Olexa [Visitor] — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:12:24 +0000

Nice post. Yes, we shouldn't break the ~arch tree on purpose..But it seems like people just want a second stable tree which doesn't help us with much. But it does point out that the arch teams are overworked because they can't keep up (or we are not filing stablereqs in a timely manor, etc)

In response to: Response to a comment

Gokdeniz Karadag [Visitor] — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:44:27 +0000

Hi,

Thanks for the effort on keeping up with X.

Also, keeping it cool and civil is a great way to respond to -positive and negative- criticism. After all, people criticise because they give importance and want things to be better.