From owner-freebsd-x11@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Nov  6 05:19:27 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-x11@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D1A09CA
 for <freebsd-x11@freebsd.org>; Tue,  6 Nov 2012 05:19:27 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from rfg@tristatelogic.com)
Received: from outgoing.tristatelogic.com (segfault.tristatelogic.com
 [69.62.255.118])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBA288FC0C
 for <freebsd-x11@freebsd.org>; Tue,  6 Nov 2012 05:19:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from segfault-nmh-helo.tristatelogic.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by segfault.tristatelogic.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 042EF5081B
 for <freebsd-x11@freebsd.org>; Mon,  5 Nov 2012 21:19:19 -0800 (PST)
To: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: WITH_NEW_XORG=yes -- failure
In-Reply-To: <50989423.5020509@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 21:19:19 -0800
Message-ID: <48772.1352179159@tristatelogic.com>
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: X11 on FreeBSD -- maintaining and support <freebsd-x11.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-x11>,
 <mailto:freebsd-x11-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-x11>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-x11@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-x11-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-x11>,
 <mailto:freebsd-x11-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 05:19:27 -0000


In message <50989423.5020509@gmail.com>, 
matt <sendtomatt@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/05/12 15:19, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>>
>> Isn't all of this NEW_XORG stuff eventually supposed to be become the
>> new "official" xorg stuff for FreeBSD?  If so, is anybody going to work
>> on fixing this, which appears to be a quite serious bug?
>>
>Personally, and with all due internet respect, I think it's not really a
>bug (in this case)...you do have two video cards with valid drivers. If
>you had one card and the correct driver, everything would be fine. If
>you had two cards and only the correct driver for the card you wanted,
>you would be fine. Since you had two cards and two correct drivers X
>-configure tried to setup both cards and exited when that failed.

Personally, and with all due internet respect, why should it have failed?

Cannot X run ``two headed''?  (I really thought that it could, but perhaps
I was mistaken.)

It is sometimes said that two heads are better than one, but perhaps not
in this case.


Regards,
rfg