Overview
Request 1147372 declined
- Drop gdm-disable-wayland-on-mgag200-chipsets.patch: Those are now
supported. (bsc#1219507)
- Add gdm-enable-wayland-on-aspeed-and-matrox.patch: Those are now
also supported. (bsc#1219507)
- Created by AZhou
- In state declined
-
Open review for
gnome-maintainers
Loading...
Request History
AZhou created request
- Drop gdm-disable-wayland-on-mgag200-chipsets.patch: Those are now
supported. (bsc#1219507)
- Add gdm-enable-wayland-on-aspeed-and-matrox.patch: Those are now
also supported. (bsc#1219507)
gnome-review-bot accepted review
Check script succeeded
dimstar declined request
Part one accepted/submitted - let's revisit the 2nd part tomorrow
That part seems obvious - especially as upstream disabled it already themselves - meaning we have it double disabled (so patch not needed, even if we want to keep matrix disabled) -> maybe adjust the wording accordingly?
It looks like upstream does not disable maga2000 cards? I don't find those lines in https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gdm/-/blob/main/data/61-gdm.rules.in.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gdm/-/commit/8bedb1f0361bc8934c9f2c2481f096cf3f31de94
It's basically the commit your 2nd patch in this SR here is reverting
Oops, just find maga2000 and matrox are the same devices. But if upstream already has those lines, the old patch should be dropped anyway.
For the reason why the 2nd patch is reverting them, see https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1219507.
And I am figuring out whether we could directly revert them in upstream.
right - which is what I meant by
i.e we should change the wording here to imply that this is fixed by upstream and the patch thus no longer needed (even though it still applies)
OK, I could create a new SR tomorrow for only dropping that patch, and leave the 2nd patch later for upstream.
I'll create that change (dropping first patch) for you in G:Factory; Take your evening off :)
For reference: sr#1148625
Did upstream go that way? Is it actually worthy to enable wayland on those machines (taking performance into account)
In https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1219507, Thomas says he rewrote the missing part so they are working now, maybe I should talk with upstream about this now.
@AZhou Any reason we don't submit it to upstream?
Should be worthy to talk with upstream, let me do this.