Xorg version

Dan Nicholson dbn.lists at gmail.com
Wed Jul 29 18:39:11 PDT 2009

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Guy
Dalziel<krendoshazin at dementedfury.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 05:13:22PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> I'm confused. How can you say X has not been touched in years?
> I didn't say X hasn't been touched in years, I said most of it hasn't.
> You simply have to take a look at the dates in the ftp. The protos get
> updated quite often, but a lot of them are from 2006; many of the
> libraries are from 2007; fonts, util, and data are majoratively from 2006;
> the applications are mostly 2006/2007; the drivers are pretty active,
> but the most active of all is xorg-server. You have to look at all the
> modules as a whole rather than focus on the bits that have been updated.
> What is updated is mostly core stuff.

Most of the time, the only things that really matter are the server
and the drivers. Everything else is just an interface to those
implementations. Since X is a client-server model, the libraries and
headers mostly just contain datatypes and protocol for talking to the
server. Almost all of the actual work and bug fixing is in the server
or the drivers.

Unless there's an update to one of the extensions (XI2, for instance)
or bugs in the protocol handling, there's not much reason to update
the libraries. For instance, XRender is a very widely used extension,
and it will be for the foreseeable future. The acceleration scheme for
render (EXA) is updated and fixed in the server all the time and
drivers have to keep up with those changes. But the API and protocol
exposed by libXrender are essentially fixed, so the code is
essentially fixed.


More information about the blfs-dev mailing list