Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:12:57 -0800 From: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> To: Niclas Zeising <zeising@freebsd.org> Cc: ray@freebsd.org, "freebsd-x11@freebsd.org" <x11@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Core Team <core@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: NEW_XORG and vt(4) in stable branches Message-ID: <CAN6yY1so24MnHd133gF7zYEiaoJ5fRnZgsPA3NwcXOBn=_Aj7A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <52FC8EDA.6090806@freebsd.org> References: <201402121443.44313.jhb@freebsd.org> <52FC8EDA.6090806@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:22 AM, Niclas Zeising <zeising@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 2014-02-12 20:43, John Baldwin wrote: > > 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. > > Good to know that it is being worked on. > > > > 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.) > > I understand your (core's) position on not wanting to enable NEW_XORG > untill vt(4) is merged. I currently don't know status of such a merge, > hopefully ray@ can fill in with that. > stable/8 is getting harder and harder to maintain, at some point we will > have to start breaking stuff, as will the kde team it sounds like. Of > course we do our best not to do this. > [...] > I hope this clears things up, otherwise please let me/us know! > Regards! > -- > Niclas > I'm just slightly confused by this. I am unaware of any reason that the use of NEW_XORG requires vt(4). KMS certainly does, but NEW_XORG should not, as far as I can tell. At least it does not on my system. I do believe that NEW_XORG will break some really old graphics cards, but I don't see how vt(4) will help this. Am I missing something? And I am very anxious to see vt(4) merged into 9 and 10, but I don't see how it impacts moving to NEW_XORG as default. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAN6yY1so24MnHd133gF7zYEiaoJ5fRnZgsPA3NwcXOBn=_Aj7A>