Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 00:04:00 +0100 From: Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org> To: Lucius Windschuh <lwindschuh@googlemail.com> Cc: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Subject: Re: xf86-video-intel and UMS Message-ID: <AANLkTin_X1trb7xZjVv37qQtyL6mVpbq08A8oxggVcCs@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin71eOjJYQUDO5X%2Bc8tEetvGrhXoa7WbJ%2By3mz6@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTinerUWHxiV9YrzHKRimqPAaPEaQhyME-oS9uju1@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=WfitL6YMqB%2B7qKqwbjH8TUs0aLAaQufBPTbjq@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTin71eOjJYQUDO5X%2Bc8tEetvGrhXoa7WbJ%2By3mz6@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2011/3/4 Lucius Windschuh <lwindschuh@googlemail.com>: > 2011/3/4 Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org>: >> 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) :-( Why not upgrade libdrm then? Is there a problem with versions newer than 2.4.17? -- Robert Millan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTin_X1trb7xZjVv37qQtyL6mVpbq08A8oxggVcCs>