From owner-freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Wed Dec 30 21:25:30 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-x11@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABF6A4CF845 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 21:25:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (mailman.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:13]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D5kpf4JdJz4hJB for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 21:25:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 91BF84CF844; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 21:25:30 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: x11@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9182A4CF8A9 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 21:25:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D5kpf3dbjz4h2W for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 21:25:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FD7F24AD6 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 21:25:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 0BULPU59034776 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 21:25:30 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 0BULPU2E034774 for x11@FreeBSD.org; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 21:25:30 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: x11@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 250700] drm-kmod i915kms binary package not working on 12.2-RELEASE Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 21:25:27 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: willcjarvis@gmail.com X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: x11@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: X11 on FreeBSD -- maintaining and support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 21:25:30 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D250700 Willbo Baggins changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |willcjarvis@gmail.com --- Comment #18 from Willbo Baggins --- (In reply to Niclas Zeising from comment #16) > The drm-fbsd12.0-kmod issue is unfortunate, but it is a known issue. It wasn't known to me, a humble user. I read the Release Notes, Errata, Hardware Notes, UPDATING and the Handbook before I upgraded, but I was still caught off guard and left without a working system until I stumbled across a Forum post, which solved the problem. If this is not considered a software bug, it must surely be considered a documentation bug. Why not add a line or two about the problem to one, two or all of the offic= ial documents listed above? While we're at it, why not add a list of ALL kernel modules which must be rebuilt from ports after a point-release upgrade? --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=