some closure on the xorg updates issue

[Adam Jackson]

Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> In short, it's a major change with only modest benefit, and a better 
>> solution is coming soon.
> 
> And what IS that "better solution"?

Parallel repositories that actually work and are easy for me to 
maintain.  Which rebuilding all of X for FC5 would not be, due to all 
the fails-to-build-in-mock bugs fixed between then and now.

> IMHO, this sets a really bad precedent. Do we really want Fedora to become the 
> next Debian Stable? Many users on the list have indicated they are running 
> Fedora precisely because they want current software, not obsolete crap which 
> happens to cooperate well with proprietary software, which as you say is not 
> even supported. I must say I'm one of these people. For those who don't want 
> version upgrades, there are plenty of other distros available (e.g. that U word 
> everyone gets spammed with these days ;-) but there are others too).

If you ever find me unpleasantly bound by precedent, kindly thwap me.

> If I'm not mistaken, the new X.Org brings support for some Intel chipsets which 
> are only currently supported by generic VESA drivers.

945 support is in xorg-x11-drv-i810 1.5.1, which is in updates-testing 
currently.  The new 965 chips only work in 1.6.4 and later, which I have 
no intention of trying to backport to FC5.

> Do we really want their 
> users to suffer because of NVidia? It could also help free some users from 
> having to use proprietary drivers (think r300 improvements...).  (If it had 
> been out earlier, before the ATI driver got upgraded, it might even have FORCED 
> some people to switch to r300, which could have either shown them how well it 
> works already or helped getting it in shape, depending on how well it would 
> have worked for them. But it's too late for that now.)

Let's make this crystal clear:

I do not care about ABI stability for out of tree drivers in Fedora.

Backporting all of 7.1 to FC5 is simply more work than it's worth.

- ajax