[10/12] package/x11r7/xserver_xorg-server: bump version to 1.18.0

- added legacy handling for BR2_PACKAGE_XSERVER_XORG_SERVER_V_1_17
- legacy handling for BR2_PACKAGE_XSERVER_XORG_SERVER_VIDEODRV_ABI_19
  is not needed because this option is not used by other packages

Signed-off-by: Bernd Kuhls <bernd.kuhls@t-online.de>
---
 Config.in.legacy                                           |  7 +++++++
 package/x11r7/xserver_xorg-server/Config.in                | 10 +++++-----
 package/x11r7/xserver_xorg-server/xserver_xorg-server.hash |  6 +++---
 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

Dear Bernd Kuhls,

Adding Arnout in Cc, since he is our legacy handling expert :)

On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 12:01:30 +0100, Bernd Kuhls wrote:
> - added legacy handling for BR2_PACKAGE_XSERVER_XORG_SERVER_V_1_17

Is this really needed? In any case, without legacy handling, the thing
will automatically fall back to version 1.18, which is what we want. So
I'm questioning whether legacy handling is needed.

> - legacy handling for BR2_PACKAGE_XSERVER_XORG_SERVER_VIDEODRV_ABI_19
>   is not needed because this option is not used by other packages

BR2_PACKAGE_XSERVER_XORG_SERVER_VIDEODRV_ABI_19 is a blind option, so
there is no point in adding legacy handling for it.

> +config BR2_PACKAGE_XSERVER_XORG_SERVER_V_1_17
> +	bool "xserver_xorg-server package was bumped to 1.18"
> +	select BR2_LEGACY
> +	select BR2_PACKAGE_XSERVER_XORG_SERVER_V_1_18

Doing a "select" on an item of a choice doesn't work. See the commit
from Arnout about this:
https://git.busybox.net/buildroot/commit/?id=94d403d709eb5d0c487630b2eb651932bb488470.

> diff --git a/package/x11r7/xserver_xorg-server/Config.in b/package/x11r7/xserver_xorg-server/Config.in
> index 84f0298..3e31dc7 100644
> --- a/package/x11r7/xserver_xorg-server/Config.in
> +++ b/package/x11r7/xserver_xorg-server/Config.in
> @@ -64,14 +64,14 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_XSERVER_XORG_SERVER_VIDEODRV_ABI_19
>  config BR2_PACKAGE_XSERVER_XORG_SERVER_VIDEODRV_ABI
>  	int
>  	default 14 if BR2_PACKAGE_XSERVER_XORG_SERVER_VIDEODRV_ABI_14
> -	default 19 if BR2_PACKAGE_XSERVER_XORG_SERVER_VIDEODRV_ABI_19
> +	default 20 if BR2_PACKAGE_XSERVER_XORG_SERVER_VIDEODRV_ABI_20

I don't see where you are adding the definition of the option
BR2_PACKAGE_XSERVER_XORG_SERVER_VIDEODRV_ABI_20.

I'll mark this patch (and the nouveau patch) as Changes Requested in
patchwork. I don't really have any comments on the nouveau patch, but
since I assumed it depended on this one, I didn't apply it. Can you
resend both once the xserver bump issues are resolved ?

Thanks a lot!

Thomas

On 19-12-15 14:17, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Bernd Kuhls,
> 
> Adding Arnout in Cc, since he is our legacy handling expert :)
> 
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 12:01:30 +0100, Bernd Kuhls wrote:
>> - added legacy handling for BR2_PACKAGE_XSERVER_XORG_SERVER_V_1_17
> 
> Is this really needed? In any case, without legacy handling, the thing
> will automatically fall back to version 1.18, which is what we want. So
> I'm questioning whether legacy handling is needed.

 I would normally say that we should still have legacy handling here, to draw
people's attention to the fact that something in the .config changed. However,
it's just a change of version, and versions are changing all over the place, so
indeed legacy handling isn't needed here.


 Regards,
 Arnout

> 
>> - legacy handling for BR2_PACKAGE_XSERVER_XORG_SERVER_VIDEODRV_ABI_19
>>   is not needed because this option is not used by other packages
> 
> BR2_PACKAGE_XSERVER_XORG_SERVER_VIDEODRV_ABI_19 is a blind option, so
> there is no point in adding legacy handling for it.
[snip]

Arnout,

On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 15:12:16 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:

>  I would normally say that we should still have legacy handling here, to draw
> people's attention to the fact that something in the .config changed. However,
> it's just a change of version, and versions are changing all over the place, so
> indeed legacy handling isn't needed here.

As you say, we're bumping versions of tons of packages all the time,
without notifying users each time (it would be horrible), so why should
we do it specifically for the X.org server ? Especially when the user
has chosen to use the "tip" (1.17) and we're just updating to the more
recent "tip".

If we were to remove the 1.14 version, which is kept so far only for
compatibility with old NVidia X.org drivers, then maybe we should do
legacy handling (and even I'm not sure, because if we are to remove
this version, it means that we would have upgraded the NVidia drivers
to a version that works fine with a more recent X.org server).

Too much legacy handling is not good IMO.

Thomas