X.org server 1.5: An ABI Too Far?

[Rodd Clarkson]

On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 10:40 +1100, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 16:56 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 13:30 -0700, Andrew Farris wrote:
> > > Their official position 
> > > has been stated at nvnews.net that they intend to wait for the official release 
> > > of xorg 7.4.  I think the unstable ABI is being used as an excuse not to get the 
> > > driver done.  It will look bad on both their part and on Fedora's part *again* 
> > > if a Fedora release goes out on which the nvidia proprietary driver cannot be 
> > > used.  I don't think it is something that is Fedora's problem though.
> > 
> > Last time we (not really, but you know what I mean) hosed ATI. Now it's
> > nVidia's turn. Consider it proof of failure of the "Proprietary Driver
> > Model".
> 
> As an nvidia user I love it when the new fedora just works with the
> nvidia driver.
> 
> nv and nouveau aren't options as far as I'm concerned because shutdown
> and restart take too long compared with the convenience of just shutting
> my laptop lid, but suspend/resume is borked on both.
> 
> HOWEVER, it really pisses me of that nvidia doesn't take support for new
> X org development (in all it's 'open to all' glory) and yet they
> wouldn't be seen dead coming late to the game for a Windows release.  So
> stick it to them and make it clear that if Linux users want to use the
> current technologies like X then nvidia is the wrong card for them.
> 
> Put it in the release notes.
> 
> "Due the Nvidia's failure to keep up-to-date with current versions of
> Xorg (again), the proprietary 'nvidia' driver is know not to work with
> fedora at the time of release.  Please direct all complaints to <inset
> email address or website address of nvidia so that they can hear from
> disgruntled customers of theirs>"

On the other hand, how much of this is true: 
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=103059&highlight=xorg+1.5

Is it the case that "The Rawhide packages, despite having 1.4.x version
numbers, are actually built from the development branch that will
eventually become xserver 1.5, and are not endorsed or supported by the
X.org Foundation."?

Has the ABI been locked down?  Or is rawhide using an 'volatile' ABI?

If the later is true, should xorg-1.5 be dropped given the near BETA
status of f9?  When does Fedora development require a stable ABI for
inclusion?


R.


-- 
"It's a fine line between denial and faith.
 It's much better on my side"