Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 12:34:45 -0400 From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: 2.2.1 RELEASE and X... is the utmp stuff still an issue? Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970415123445.00b07880@sentex.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Christoph Kukulies wrote: > >> Howard Goldstein writes: >> > In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.970326234212.17129B-100000@resnet.uoregon.edu>, doug >> > white wrote: >> > : >> > : Uh, hm. Unfortunately, X is a big mess for now, I wouldn't have >> > : recommended playing with it if your exsiting copy was v3.2 and working >> > : properly. It's compiled for 3.0-CURRENT and will cause odd problems for >> > : you if you aren't running it... >> >> What actually are the problems with X (F8632) in the 2.2.1R tree ? >> (besides that it is a link to 3.2/binaries/FreeBSD-current) >> I assume it is compiled after the wtmp/utmp changes and WRT that >> 2.2.1R is in sync. So where then is the mess? > >For some reason the X included with 2.2.1 (which I think is symlinked from >ftp.freebsd.org:/pub/XFree86) has the utmp patches, which plays hell with >non-current systems. > >Someone needs to rebuild X again on a 2.2 system and not on a -CURRENT >system. > I just upgraded to 2.2.1 RELEASE and was wondering if the above mentioned issue is still a problem? ---Mike ********************************************************************** Mike Tancsa (mike@sentex.net) * To do is to be -- Nietzsche Sentex Communications Corp, * To be is to do -- Sartre Cambridge, Ontario * Do be do be do -- Sinatra (http://www.sentex.net/~mdtancsa) *
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.1.32.19970415123445.00b07880>