Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 21:03:50 +0100 From: Lucius Windschuh <lwindschuh@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Subject: Fwd: xf86-video-intel and UMS Message-ID: <AANLkTin71eOjJYQUDO5X%2Bc8tEetvGrhXoa7WbJ%2By3mz6@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=WfitL6YMqB%2B7qKqwbjH8TUs0aLAaQufBPTbjq@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTinerUWHxiV9YrzHKRimqPAaPEaQhyME-oS9uju1@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=WfitL6YMqB%2B7qKqwbjH8TUs0aLAaQufBPTbjq@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2011/3/4 Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org>: > Hi, > > Can someone explain why is xf86-video-intel 2.7.1 used in ports? Unless > I missed something, the GIT repository in FDO has more recent branches > where UMS hasn't been removed yet: > > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel/log/?h=2.8 > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel/log/?h=2.9 > > Is 2.7.1 really the latest portable version? It's at least the last version that works reliably and is compatible to our libdrm, as I see it. The xf86-video-intel v2.9 triggers assertions in our libdrm_intel.so.1 (just tested it) :-( Lucius
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTin71eOjJYQUDO5X%2Bc8tEetvGrhXoa7WbJ%2By3mz6>