From owner-freebsd-x11@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 21 10:48:04 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 151F016A4CE; Fri, 21 May 2004 10:48:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 21322530218.direct.eti.at (21322530218.direct.eti.at [213.225.30.218]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3824743D2F; Fri, 21 May 2004 10:48:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tilman@arved.at) Received: from huckfinn-wi0.arved.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) i4LHlwIT071119; Fri, 21 May 2004 19:47:59 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from tilman@arved.at) Received: (from tilman@localhost) by huckfinn-wi0.arved.de (8.12.11/8.12.6/Submit) id i4LHlwYZ071118; Fri, 21 May 2004 19:47:58 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: huckfinn-wi0.arved.de: tilman set sender to tilman@arved.at using -f Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 19:47:57 +0200 From: Tilman Linneweh To: Michael Nottebrock Message-ID: <20040521174757.GL65887@arved.at> References: <20040521022211.81086.qmail@web13423.mail.yahoo.com> <20040521091011.GA67611@arved.at> <200405211925.07300.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200405211925.07300.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: "Pedro F. Giffuni" cc: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org cc: x11@freebsd.org Subject: Re: XFree86 4.4 port ?? X-BeenThere: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: X11 on FreeBSD -- maintaining and support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 17:48:04 -0000 * Michael Nottebrock [2004-05-21 19:26]: > > > I appreciate the great work that has been done lately to support the > > > X.org server, but I recall there was a working port of Xfree86 4.4. Any > > > *technical* reason why it hasn't been committed? > > > > Hi, thanks for raising this discussion, From my testing, I think there > > are no technical reasons, that it can not be committed within 24 hours. > > I do think that having one X11 server(+libraries) in ports instead of two > (which on top of all else share lots of code and will make it supereasy for > users to get messy, mixed installations) is a good thing - and that one > package should be X.org - for technical reasons. Yeah, I 100% agree, ofcourse the XFree86-server update can wait, until the switch happend and upgrading the non-default Xfree86 Xserver is less problematic then. But since the x.org aren't ready yet, we might as well do it the other way around, and do the switch later. The question is, how large is the need for a 4.4-server now. AFAIK people with via(4)-hardware and new Radeon cards, are the only ones that need it (..and I am lucky having two affected machines) regards tilman