Bug 1073057

Summary: [PATCH] Default backing store to off for X11 backend
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Adam Jackson <ajax>
Component: SDLAssignee: Petr Pisar <ppisar>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: ajax, ppisar
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: SDL-1.2.15-14.fc21 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-03-07 09:56:45 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
SDL-1.2.15-no-default-backing-store.patch none

Description Adam Jackson 2014-03-05 16:50:15 UTC 
Created attachment 871056 [details]
SDL-1.2.15-no-default-backing-store.patch

Apropos of upstream bug:

https://bugzilla.libsdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2383

Since upstream apparently doesn't intend to do another 1.2 release, we should patch this back to the old behaviour, at least on Fedorae running xserver 1.15 or newer (ie, F21+).  Attached patch does this.
Comment 1 Petr Pisar 2014-03-06 07:50:06 UTC 
Does xserver 1.15 always enable backing store, or only when Composition extension is enabled, or only if a compositor is running?
Comment 2 Adam Jackson 2014-03-06 15:40:54 UTC 
(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #1)
> Does xserver 1.15 always enable backing store

Effectively yes, because...
 
> or only when Composition extension is enabled

... when the Composite extension is enabled, backing store support is advertised, and the Composite extension is enabled by default.
Comment 3 Petr Pisar 2014-03-07 09:12:13 UTC 
I asked because your suggestion in the SDL upstream was to checke for a compositor, not for composite extension. At least that was my impression.
Comment 4 Adam Jackson 2014-03-07 13:53:36 UTC 
(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #3)
> I asked because your suggestion in the SDL upstream was to checke for a
> compositor, not for composite extension. At least that was my impression.

Yeah, I was trying to give them another option in case they really did have a reason to want backing store.  I think just reverting to the old behaviour is the better move though.  Thanks!