any news on xorg 7.1?

jinn · 2006-04-08 13:09:11

#5041 is the release tracker for 7.1. #5387 should be used for nominating
things to stable branches if there's any dispute. Don't stay out past
midnight, look both ways before crossing the street, etc.
DO NOT COMMIT TO XC.
I will repeat this, because it bears repeating.
DO NOT COMMIT TO XC.
You all already know that 6.8 is bugfix-only. The same applies to 6.9 now,
with the caveat that 6.9 hasn't been explicitly branched. No changes are to
be applied to xc, at all, until a release manager for that branch steps up.
There will be no 6.10, do not commit any new development to 6.9.
Proposed 7.1 schedule:
Branch nomination for 7.1: March 17, 2006
Branch selection for 7.1: March 31, 2006
7.1RC1: April 7, 2006
7.1RC2: April 28, 2006
7.1RC3: May 12, 2006
7.1 Release: May 19, 2006
That's five months. We should have much less integration testing needed this
time around. The 'nomination' and 'selection' phases are for selecting which
branch of each module to include in the 7.1 rollup. This may mean creating
branches to stabilize various modules after a development phase; that's fine.
Feedback on this schedule would be appreciated.

JGC · 2006-04-08 14:44:45

RC1 was released yesterday. They force everyone to rebuild all drivers, so we can't ship Xorg 7.1 before nvidia and ati ship drivers that work with it.

test1000 · 2006-04-08 14:52:58

but we don't want to ship RC's anyway right? depending on how much testing an "RC" gets I mean. If it's not much more than a cvs snapshot; we don't ship cvs/svn/git snapshots either, so why should we ship it? what am i talking about, this probably goes in testing anyway Just no RC's in current! unless their _very_ stable.

Neuro · 2006-04-08 15:52:22

What's so fancy about 7.1? Is it really worth the anticipation?

Jacek Poplawski · 2006-04-09 13:53:05

Do we really care about "xorg 7.1"? I thought that now we should care about version of xorg-server, our video driver, etc... not whole xorg.

josolanes · 2006-04-09 14:23:36

Jacek Poplawski wrote:

Do we really care about "xorg 7.1"? I thought that now we should care about version of xorg-server, our video driver, etc... not whole xorg.

xorg 7.0 shows up in the repos as xorg-server 1.0, so i'd think that xorg 7.1 would show up as xorg-server 1.1

weren't there rumors that the new xorg (7.1) would have xgl in it? or something to that effect? that's what really has me anticiptating the new release

Jacek Poplawski · 2006-04-09 14:32:32

But there is xgl package in shadowhand repo, why do you need xgl from xorg?

Neuro · 2006-04-09 14:54:41

Jacek Poplawski wrote:

But there is xgl package in shadowhand repo, why do you need xgl from xorg?

Heh, I don't know really. Perhaps some value stability and wide acceptance?

Gullible Jones · 2006-04-09 15:14:17

Neuro wrote:

What's so fancy about 7.1? Is it really worth the anticipation?

It will include AIGLX.

Jacek Poplawski · 2006-04-09 19:13:49

AFAIK SUSE will put xgl in their distro. It doesn't matter if xgl is in xorg, it matters is it in distro.
I like idea of updating single packages from xorg, not whole "xorg 7.1", then "xorg 7.2", etc...

Mikos · 2006-04-09 19:55:34

Next NVidia drivers will include support for GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap OpenGL extension, so Xgl won't be needed (Compiz or other OpenGL composite managers will run natively on your X server with AIGLX, similar to Intel i810/i915 drivers on which Compiz runs directly even now). And AIGLX is already included in xorg CVS (so it will be in X.Org 7.1).

But I don't know when will be support for GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap included in ATI drivers :-)

Jacek Poplawski · 2006-04-09 22:30:29

Are there aiglx packages for Arch available?

emma · 2006-04-09 22:32:19

Jacek Poplawski wrote:

AFAIK SUSE will put xgl in their distro. It doesn't matter if xgl is in xorg, it matters is it in distro.
I like idea of updating single packages from xorg, not whole "xorg 7.1", then "xorg 7.2", etc...

AIGLX is not the same as XGL. XGL is another X server, whereas AIGLX is an X extension.

Jacek Poplawski · 2006-04-10 07:15:07

glx is protocol, xgl is server :-)

Moo-Crumpus · 2006-04-10 07:45:19

Confusing stuff...

emma · 2006-04-10 07:58:27

Jacek Poplawski wrote:

glx is protocol, xgl is server :-)

Oops, hurray for dyslexia. lol

Mikos · 2006-04-10 11:50:48

Yes, AIGLX is only extension of X.Org server (Accelerated Indirect Rendering). It is already included in CVS (so it will be in 7.1). With AIGLX you just start X server like usually and if you use some OpenGL composite manager/wm (Compiz, in future also Metacity, etc.), you have fully accelerated X with nice eyecandy effects. But your graphics drivers must support GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap OpenGL extension (which is now supported only in Intel i810/i915 and Radeon r200 opensource drivers, but it will be supported also in next NVidia proprietary drivers).

Xglx is different (yes, it is Xglx, not Xgl. Xgl is architecture, not server, it is implemented also for example in Xegl server), it is more radical change in X architecture. It is another X server with DDX (graphical subsystem) replaced by completely OpenGL based graphical architecture (Xgl).

Jacek Poplawski · 2006-04-10 14:49:28

Mikos, are you sure that GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap is not working in r300 open source driver?

Mikos · 2006-04-10 15:25:03

Jacek Poplawski wrote:

Mikos, are you sure that GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap is not working in r300 open source driver?

Well, I am not sure. Maybe GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap is working, but there are some problems with this driver which prevents AIGLX from work (according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RenderingProject/aiglx). But this may change in future.

Gullible Jones · 2006-04-10 19:46:34

Mikos wrote:

Xglx is different (yes, it is Xglx, not Xgl. Xgl is architecture, not server, it is implemented also for example in Xegl server), it is more radical change in X architecture. It is another X server with DDX (graphical subsystem) replaced by completely OpenGL based graphical architecture (Xgl).

Umm don't you mean Xegl?

Mikos · 2006-04-10 19:57:14

No, I really mean Xglx. Xglx is in my opinion only "testbed" for Xgl graphics architecture, real future for Xgl is Xegl.

nightfrost · 2006-04-17 16:33:50

JGC wrote:

RC1 was released yesterday. They force everyone to rebuild all drivers, so we can't ship Xorg 7.1 before nvidia and ati ship drivers that work with it.

Lots of people use other graphic chips, don't they? Like laptop users who use i810 (like myself ). How about putting xorg 7.1 + open source drivers in unstable?

Bralkein · 2006-04-17 20:03:11

If you're interested in this accelerated desktop stuff, there's a pretty good episode of TLLTS (from the beginning of March) where they have Zack Rusin as a guest, he works on this kind of stuff. Linky.

It seems like the developmental landscape for accelerated desktop stuff is pretty complicated, but this is what I understand:

Currently, most people have the X.org server and accelerated stuff is done through direct rendering, i.e. not through the X server.

XGLX is a hardware-accelerated X Server, but it actually runs on top of the current X.org server that most people would be using right now. This means it is, from a technical standpoint, a pretty horrible solution, and in the long term it is not a good plan to go with. I think that most people see it as an experimental ground for working on the technologies that will someday power XEGL. However, I think there are actually people who want to go with XGLX, because it is something that actually works right now (Novell?).

XEGL is the radical, long-term solution. It aims to basically re-write the X Server from the ground up, in order to support XGLX-type functionality, but with a much cleaner, nicer design that should be better for everyone to work with. IMO this seems like the best idea, but it is by far the least immediate.

AIGLX is an extension to the current X Server and surrounding technologies that are in use today. It basically makes it so that accelerated, OpenGL-based rendering can be done via the X Server, and managed that way. A consequence of this is that it allows the groovy Compiz-style effects. It's a pretty conservative approach, and I think it's favoured by many X developers who don't feel comfortable with throwing away all of the work that's been done on XFree86/X.org over the years.

Compiz is a composition manager. It handles all of the groovy effects, by taking advantage of the new techniques that are made possible by one of the three technologies above. I think it mainly runs on XGLX, but since it is conceptually independant, it could work on any of the three. In fact, I think it's been made to work using AIGLX, but I think development on AIGLX is mostly tested using composition code added to the Metacity WM.

Do I more or less have the full picture here?

Jacek Poplawski · 2006-04-18 12:59:38

Thanks Bralkein, interesting post.

token · 2006-04-20 03:27:04

Good, I'm now completely switched over to XGL here for my KDE desktop, the only thing that seems to be bad is video playback, and most of the cool effects take up about 30% cpu time. I don't think its taking full advantage, and I sure hope NVIDIA's driver with the new extension is going to help, because its hard to go back to the 'old' method.

I do look forward to it being built into xorg, should make adoption of it a lot easier.

Now the real question is, will NVIDIA release it in their next release (the one supposedly out in a few days), or is it going to be a few months away? Only NVIDIA can answer that, but it definately shows how much control NVIDIA really has over Linux, and why Intel's push for open source drivers may be the future, depending on what intel brings to the table in terms of hardware.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-04-08 13:09:11

any news on xorg 7.1?

#2 2006-04-08 14:44:45

Re: any news on xorg 7.1?

#3 2006-04-08 14:52:58

Re: any news on xorg 7.1?

#4 2006-04-08 15:52:22

Re: any news on xorg 7.1?

#5 2006-04-09 13:53:05

Re: any news on xorg 7.1?

#6 2006-04-09 14:23:36

Re: any news on xorg 7.1?

#7 2006-04-09 14:32:32

Re: any news on xorg 7.1?

#8 2006-04-09 14:54:41

Re: any news on xorg 7.1?

#9 2006-04-09 15:14:17

Re: any news on xorg 7.1?

#10 2006-04-09 19:13:49

Re: any news on xorg 7.1?

#11 2006-04-09 19:55:34

Re: any news on xorg 7.1?

#12 2006-04-09 22:30:29

Re: any news on xorg 7.1?

#13 2006-04-09 22:32:19

Re: any news on xorg 7.1?

#14 2006-04-10 07:15:07

Re: any news on xorg 7.1?

#15 2006-04-10 07:45:19

Re: any news on xorg 7.1?

#16 2006-04-10 07:58:27

Re: any news on xorg 7.1?

#17 2006-04-10 11:50:48

Re: any news on xorg 7.1?

#18 2006-04-10 14:49:28

Re: any news on xorg 7.1?

#19 2006-04-10 15:25:03

Re: any news on xorg 7.1?

#20 2006-04-10 19:46:34

Re: any news on xorg 7.1?

#21 2006-04-10 19:57:14

Re: any news on xorg 7.1?

#22 2006-04-17 16:33:50

Re: any news on xorg 7.1?

#23 2006-04-17 20:03:11

Re: any news on xorg 7.1?

#24 2006-04-18 12:59:38

Re: any news on xorg 7.1?

#25 2006-04-20 03:27:04

Re: any news on xorg 7.1?

Board footer