From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 5 18:46:45 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 805DD2F8 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2014 18:46:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qg0-x235.google.com (mail-qg0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40C3E226C for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2014 18:46:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id i50so2381912qgf.26 for ; Sat, 05 Jul 2014 11:46:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=A4c8TSDDooPXvV9bd6LMNdH6mLP3uJvMbUL6DFyFV1w=; b=OP/rUs+PiDPsQw6qPdnzWEpRjOo1wLbv5sgvru5a+4F4gHLpj2fkDqLDEQLB3/yBDO 52uwcdO6qi2XVBVy50773j/0IJqFZzywaIsaLpiba1YliU1PhcKmw/zvFjjeW23mxvpO hGaIcoeRADOusOazyZinxmkK63oj9U99eNWxm9O9tuvAL5wCTDlwDKFUYuYMxt3mlXH1 pBcVnqAO+G9MrIY6JlzSklvCugXjjTwF8AlNzrNBRXOTOMVOZjTNZ7yZc9IUGT4DYmi9 Qp1uNDPbh/hBPGXzQ1yBgP9AXpS6dRzEhl3PkBeYnkQ49tQMaZwrSW/wiGqi87aOB8Cq KJAg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.80.49 with SMTP id b46mr28754834qgd.102.1404586003950; Sat, 05 Jul 2014 11:46:43 -0700 (PDT) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.224.202.193 with HTTP; Sat, 5 Jul 2014 11:46:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140705103235.GB7680@rwpc15.gfn.riverwillow.net.au> References: <53B69B88.4060803@gmail.com> <20140705103235.GB7680@rwpc15.gfn.riverwillow.net.au> Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 11:46:43 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3ctkPd_XPappgw_8TC3HHgTDcZU Message-ID: Subject: Re: Should 9.3 carry a warning about NEW_XORG From: Adrian Chadd To: FreeBSD Stable Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 18:46:45 -0000 The TL;DR reason for going up to building with new-xorg is because without it, an increasing number of X related ports plainly won't build anymore. They assume the newer X and DRI libraries. So the choice is (a) new_xorg and pain, (b) no new_xorg and a lot of X packages not getting upgraded any further, (c) more work on the ports maintainers to try and figure out ways to work around an increasingly impossible situation. There's also (d) - don't bother with 9.3. The X ports team has a fast moving target to keep track of and we're still not anywhere near the bleeding edge of Linux graphics rendering support and all the graphics stuff that moves with it. As much as I hate to see lots of churn, it's a losing battle. -a On 5 July 2014 03:32, John Marshall wrote: > On Fri, 04 Jul 2014, 15:31 -0400, Ed Maste wrote: >> In HEAD syscons(4) and vt(4) are now both compiled in by default in >> the GENERIC kernel. Syscons remains the default at the moment; you >> can set the loader tunable kern.vty=vt to choose vt(4) instead. Vt is >> selected automatically if booting via UEFI on amd64. >> >> Both stable/10 and stable/9 require a recompile to use vt(4). The >> plan is to merge these changes from HEAD in time for 10.1, but 9.3 >> will not have them. > > So, perhaps 9.3 should remain "opt in" like 9.2 and not build NEW_XORG > by default? > >> Note that vt(4) enables vty switching from Xorg, but WITH_NEW_XORG >> generally should not depend on vt(4). X should work fine, just >> without the ability to switch back to a vty. If WITH_NEW_XORG fails >> on certain hardware I think it'll be independent of the use of sc(v) >> vs vt(4). > > Thank you, Ed, for taking the time to explain all that. I had been > under the impression that NEW_XORG depended on vt(4), which was why I > modified my 9.3 kernel. sc(4) worked fine after my initial upgrade, > vt(4) works fine; it's just X that doesn't. > > Perhaps my "X no longer works" scenario is due to "certain hardware"? > Is there a list somewhere of hardware on which NEW_XORG will not work, > so that folks running 9.2 with that hardware can set WITHOUT_NEW_XORG > BEFORE they upgrade to 9.3 and save themselves grief? > > -- > John Marshall