Bug 6608

Sorry about the phenomenal bug spam, guys.  Adding xorg-team@ to the QA contact so bugs don't get lost in future.

Could confirm this bug. Any "RGBPath" in "/etc/X11/xorg.conf" is ignored and only the default, build in rgb-database is used. The logs claim to use a given, configured rgb-database, but while starting X this is only logged. The database itself is never accessed. In fact it is reported to be used even if it does not exist!

Yes, there is a define (in os/oscolor.c) which forces use of the built-in RGB database, even though oscolor.c knows perfectly well how to read the one provided by the rgb package:  At oscolor.54, we have this:

#define USE_RGB_BUILTIN 1

#if USE_RGB_BUILTIN

I have never seen the point of this because it reduces functionality (some of use custom rgb databases) and is easily defeated just by changing that "1" to a "0", which I do every time I have to rebuild xorg-server.  Now, that gets old after the first 20 or 30 times (I have to build it on several systems).

I don't object to having the option to use the built-in database, but I really think it should be controlled by a configuration option --- instead of defining USE_RGB_BUILTIN in oscolor.c, let the configure script define it like it defines other things.

Three years later this still isn't getting reverted.

I insist this be corrected.

(In reply to comment #5)
> I insist this be corrected.

We'll need a lot better reason than "Someone we've never heard of insisted."

(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > I insist this be corrected.
> 
> We'll need a lot better reason than "Someone we've never heard of insisted."

Alan, I find that you are missing a bit the tone with your reply, not to say it could be perceived as being arrogant.  Jonathan Kollasch is a respected NetBSD developer, at he is not someone noone has ever heard of...  I have worked with him, I am sure Matthieu Herrb has had contact with him, too.

I am sure that Jonathan has very valid reasons to request the change being reverted, and for now I don't see really we it should not be done?  But then I am not an expert in the RGB area.

(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > (In reply to comment #5)
> > > I insist this be corrected.
> > 
> > We'll need a lot better reason than "Someone we've never heard of insisted."
> 
> Alan, I find that you are missing a bit the tone with your reply, not to say it
> could be perceived as being arrogant.  Jonathan Kollasch is a respected NetBSD
> developer, at he is not someone noone has ever heard of...  I have worked with
> him, I am sure Matthieu Herrb has had contact with him, too.

I'm sorry - not being active in NetBSD, I've never heard of him, and I found 
the tone of "I insist this be corrected" with no explanation to be quite 
offputting - as an open source developer, I'm sure he's used to users demanding 
their bugs be fixed without offering any help, and understands our frustration
with demands like this.

> I am sure that Jonathan has very valid reasons to request the change being
> reverted, 

Then he can give them.   Valid technical arguments are given much more weight
than "I insist you write the code I want." without explanation.

Xcms.txt is still supported; it is not difficult to convert a file from
rgb.txt syntax to Xcms.txt syntax.  Plus, you can do a better job with
Xcms.txt than rgb.txt could ever do, since it is colour-space-aware.