From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 14 16:18:56 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F29A1065696; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 16:18:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C0168FC15; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 16:18:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oAEGItAk020159; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 09:18:55 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) with ESMTP id oAEGIsOF020156; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 09:18:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 09:18:54 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block To: Andriy Gapon In-Reply-To: <4CDEE881.201@icyb.net.ua> Message-ID: References: <4CD7C15D.2010203@icyb.net.ua> <20101108150306.GB17517@wep4035.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de> <4CD8132D.9090902@icyb.net.ua> <20101113192506.GC29660@lonesome.com> <4CDEE881.201@icyb.net.ua> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Sun, 14 Nov 2010 09:18:55 -0700 (MST) Cc: Alexey Shuvaev , Mark Linimon , freebsd-x11@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: xorg-server 1.7.7 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 16:18:56 -0000 On Sat, 13 Nov 2010, Andriy Gapon wrote: > I agree, but I am not sure how in the ports land we do an application testing in > general. That is, I am sure there will be a lot of testers if the port update > is actually committed :-) but I am not sure how to test it in advance (given all > the possible hardware and software configurations). Why not just create a new xorg-server177 or xorg-server-devel port as has been done with other ports? Assuming no other dependencies, or at least a clear list of what to rebuild in the pkg-message, it would allow people to test the new xorg-server and easily revert to the old one if needed. Mesa, too... and what was the other port talked about recently... libdrm?