Re: BLFS-12.3: Xorg-server/TearFree-patch/unclear wording

"Bruce Dubbs" ([email protected] via blfs-dev Mailing List) <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.lfs.beyond.devel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On 3/17/25 6:52 AM, Xi Ruoyao ([email protected] via blfs-dev Mailing List) wrote:
> On Mon, 2025-03-17 at 12:42 +0100, Rainer Fiebig wrote:
>> Am 17.03.25 um 12:17 schrieb Xi Ruoyao ([email protected] via blfs-dev
>> Mailing List):
>>> On Mon, 2025-03-17 at 19:07 +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2025-03-17 at 11:41 +0100, Rainer Fiebig wrote:
>>>>> This text concerning the TearFree-patch for Xorg-server doesn't make
>>>>> sense to me:
>>>>>
>>>>> "With the removal of the xf86-video-* drivers, the TearFree option is no
>>>>> longer functional. To work around this, upstream has added the TearFree
>>>>> option to the default modesetting driver. This patch backports this
>>>>> feature. [...]"
>>>>>
>>>>> If upstream (the Xorg-devs, I guess?) has already added the TearFree
>>>>> option, as the text suggests, it would not be necessary to apply the
>>>>> patch.
>>>>
>>>> It's added in the master branch, but not the 21.1.x release branch.
>>>>
>>>>> I suppose what's meant is that the patch re-enables the TearFree
>>>>> option in the modesetting driver?  If that's correct, I suggest the
>>>>> following wording:
>>>>
>>>> No it's not correct.  TearFree in modesetting is a new feature.
>>>
>>> Quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backporting, with [...] added
>>> by myself:
>>>
>>> Backporting is the action of taking parts from a newer version [Xorg
>>> development branch] of a software system or software component and
>>> porting them to an older version [Xorg 21.1.x] of the same software. It
>>> forms part of the maintenance step in a software development process,
>>> and it is commonly used for fixing security issues in older versions of
>>> the software and also for providing new features [TearFree] to older
>>> versions.
>>>
>>> Thus the note is correct and there's nothing to change.
>> Thanks for lecturing me.  But that doesn't make the text in the note any
>> better.  It's unclear at best and crappy IMO.
> 
> So what would you suggest?  I really don't want to replicate the
> definition of "backport" here as I expect the reader to either know it
> or search online for the definition if not knowing it already.

I suppose we can add to the sentence "..upstream has added the TearFree option to the 
default modesetting driver" 'in their development tree.'

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/info/blfs-dev
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.