Comment 161 for bug 185311

Bryce, thanks for the update and your good work on the issue. Keeping the community in the loop is one reason why I'm glad I switched over to Ubuntu back when I did, even if it means tripping over an odd bug or two.

I really hope Canonical decides to unroll the xcb stuff in libX11 (and perhaps release an updated Compiz that uses its own private xcb+X11). Even if you guys think you understand all the broken cases, I'm sure there will be piles of older software that will simply break (and won't be reported here), leaving a lot of frustrated users and their applications. Even if your updates expose bugs in the user client application itself, the user will still blame Ubuntu, and might not have any recourse for updating their old/unmaintained/vendor no longer exists/etc software. I think the trade off, breaking an untold amount of old applications (none of the work arounds work me at all, for example) for compiz, just isn't worth it.

Having two seperate libX11 and libX11xcb libraries would allow a gradual (and distinct) migration route for applications (well, more for toolkits). Toolkits can switch to the X11+xcb one (or ideally, pure xcb) at their own, hopefully well tested, pace.

Sorry to sound like a broken record on this topic :)