From owner-freebsd-x11@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 13 04:09:40 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-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 E2FB7F5A for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 04:09:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nm13-vm6.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm13-vm6.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [216.109.115.6]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82CA813AB for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 04:09:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [66.196.81.159] by nm13.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Feb 2014 04:07:43 -0000 Received: from [98.138.104.98] by tm5.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Feb 2014 04:07:43 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp118.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Feb 2014 04:07:43 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bellsouth.net; s=s1024; t=1392264463; bh=thBVuh7ZqTbnhm8anRTtfp7o6/SMFj+qsy34D9Uxv6c=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:Message-ID:Date:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-Rocket-Received:From:To:Subject:References; b=MLxZTqXFae7HFr8a2zf26mVwrsvJZnkV0pxof/IHIqF/NgGRzkvLilLzQznpKqCtN/K4TOtZpbNGddxUcrh1HP8nhX8HKCJU4fUOdT4fYfD9oTctl1sNgNq6zUB4LoOeWf9MyHs/arlOZzce28vk8kPnxtP0Na+mT1s9sziYto0= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 659841.27534.bm@smtp118.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Message-ID: <659841.27534.bm@smtp118.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 04:07:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: .mQr2WwVM1kTjjHLy.STbhK5aPL.D7nHQgsecyr_q.ZRpZ1 T_KTlf1aY2c80QPPb9h4RXwa.zRwk22F32GVjGvtSMnaM2MW7zy5WzRInRhX St8gKLEn66fY.T4VY4DdDeRVxprN54O6ARaNyTWh5vWcirucSGdFqXpxpC27 bngn0Q7_O53nB5Y2iS0tzaf9F5rb5TCvjy.9Za2n1JBTEgeotUtEzzWDVR8y a.OXI0hwK5JD82GPhxT5ujv.c7M8xE_mmCfzVZO0_nwCOEYdDrGnfSbEqtZn YzexMqrtgRnhgY6gHS5Re_g3z_6jVh_hE_nBBYRjdJ87VlDXGeBI8Bdgfq7n HfcBPrARMgOqkwZqvs.VNahGjCyhUbNbKYlTsQtiaQxndTuliKoaSIl5Tb24 dpBF_6EY59RzNytopYfohERHLzj4a3uBd2AvbtFnVDFOFCyJ6etqoXbxZHjl yNK5b0WV9UfwJ.xKFriSx_Qa07PDm.rUUP_fcglrHZRfDGF9fFCZrKja7Tnf Scwcnc3KFsQOgCjSTqq8BeQ2O9i1PwxZtLNBsduwQ.WyRQre4.lpb9htrJDq Ym1m1DXB4dN0Zh9ptEohMSwCfBk7zTrBYdVqBacSpz6Mx08XU1y4kbrJlUiE zmm5SUUcO X-Yahoo-SMTP: Kz_aW1.swBBYof3zAD7.RWzXz9ZAQVDMml1VADsbgPT4Kq79LC0- X-Rocket-Received: from localhost (mueller6724@96.28.178.143 with plain [98.138.31.74]) by smtp118.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2014 04:07:43 +0000 UTC From: "Thomas Mueller" To: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NEW_XORG and vt(4) in stable branches References: <201402121443.44313.jhb@freebsd.org> 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: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 04:09:40 -0000 On 02/12/14 20:43, John Baldwin wrote: > 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? I am building HEAD amd64 and i386, intend to try X with vt(4) and vt_vga, meaning newcons. I set up to build kernels for both newcons and syscons. I also want to build stable/10, now at prerelease, delayed because I give priority to HEAD. One question is whether vesa driver, with syscons, as a fallback, on stable/10 and 9, will enable NEW_XORG without nasty adverse effects. I tried NEW_XORG on 9.2, or was it 9.1 (stable), trying to startx with either vesa or intel, hung the computer, I couldn't even run "shutdown -r now". I had a mess of a time switching back to old Xorg. I say 8.x is not worth the bother, but am put off by base.aa, base.ab, base.ac etc download files, and sysinstall. Anyway, it sounds like too much trouble for 8.x approaching EOL. With 9,x, I am quite satisfied to put sysinstall forever behind me. I am considering upgrading from 9.2-STABLE directly to HEAD, skipping 10, after seeing how stable/10 and HEAD do on the other computer, where I would have no Internet access at all from FreeBSD 9.x due to bug in re(4) and lack of rsu(4). Tom