From owner-freebsd-x11@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 12 19:44:01 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: x11@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57602829; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 19:44:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigwig.baldwin.cx [IPv6:2001:470:1f11:75::1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D6EF169D; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 19:44:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (unknown [209.249.190.124]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2CC87B9E0; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 14:44:00 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: x11@freebsd.org, ray@freebsd.org, Ed Maste Subject: NEW_XORG and vt(4) in stable branches Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 14:43:44 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.4-CBSD-20130906; KDE/4.5.5; amd64; ; ) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201402121443.44313.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 14:44:00 -0500 (EST) Cc: FreeBSD Core Team X-BeenThere: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 12 Feb 2014 19:44:01 -0000 I just wanted to drop a note to see if everyone is on the same page here. I know that core@ has been discussing the NEW_XORG internally quite a bit, but that has all been internal to core@ so far. Our current feeling is that we would like to not enable NEW_XORG by default for the packages for a given src branch until vt(4) has been merged to that branch. We do not think that vt(4) needs to be enabled by default in the branch; just having it available as an option as it is in HEAD would be sufficient. Our understanding is that merging vt(4) in its current-ish form to stable/10 and stable/9 is quite feasible and not a major nightmare. We do not feel that it is necessary to merge to stable/8 as drm2 isn't merged to stable/8 either. (Our assumption is that stable/8 will just stay with the old Xorg and the ports tree will have to support old Xorg until 8.x support in ports is EOL'd.) Does that sound sensible? Are any of our assumptions above incorrect? I know that on the Graphics page on the wiki, the x11@ team has a target date of enabling NEW_XORG for stable branches (is that 9 and 10?) in March. Do we think vt(4) can be merged to stable/10 and stable/9 before then? -- John Baldwin