From owner-freebsd-ports Wed Jan 31 6:32:17 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from webcom.it (brian.inet.it [213.92.4.195]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0DF3537B4EC for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 06:32:00 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 8411 invoked by uid 1000); 31 Jan 2001 14:25:43 -0000 Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:25:42 +0100 From: Andrea Campi To: Jean-Marc Zucconi Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: -CURRENT and XFree86 4.0.2 problem Message-ID: <20010131152541.F2268@webcom.it> References: <20010123101200.B542@naver.co.id> <20010131115547.C2268@webcom.it> <200101311336.f0VDaTk81098@freefall.freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200101311336.f0VDaTk81098@freefall.freebsd.org>; from jmz@FreeBSD.org on Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 05:36:29AM -0800 X-Echelon: BND CIA NSA Mossad KGB MI6 IRA detonator nuclear assault strike Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > Reverting to 4.0.1 is not a way to solve the problem. Someone running > -stable with a i810 chipset has to investigate the problem and > provide patches. I can't do it myself, not having a i810. > Is this a problem with -stable only (i.e. does 4.0.2 works on > -RELEASE)? The i810 code has changed a lot between 4.0.1 and 4.0.2. Sure, it's not a solution - throwing away anything Intel is :-p Seriously, this is my main workstation at the office, and I need to get real work done. That's my number one priority. Once I am back at that point, with my /usr/X11R6 backed up, I can probably try. Do you have any suggestion as to what to check? A diff between the 4.0.1 and 4.0.2 showed difference only in how AGP support gets detected, not in the actual AGP support. So the breakage is probably in the i810 code... But this is not the point, in my opinion. The point is, X is something we must be able to rely on. It should never be broken, as it takes hours to fix it. If it breaks, it should be fixed ASAP. If we are not able to guarantee this, then we must have 2 revisions in the tree, and be able to test on all (common) hardware ASAP. I don't blame you for not testing this on my hardware, of course - I blame myself for stupidly upgrading without an easy way back. But we must learn the lesson for the future. If you are going to be maintainer of this code, may I suggest that you find a group of volunteers that together have 99% of the hardware (it's not hard), and let them test new revisions before upgrading? That would be a very professional way to deal with this. Bye, Andrea -- Weird enough for government work. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message