From owner-freebsd-x11@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 14 02:12:58 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: x11@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56208617; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 02:12:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pa0-x22d.google.com (mail-pa0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B8651D71; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 02:12:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id lf10so11603661pab.4 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:12:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/ZXk28bx9kdcNSf8Iy4BTPj4uTBPWWs5W/Y1HNFrcx4=; b=Uq2KXMGBy/ceefAetmbG2wEONXCO5kkTAH3VCesd/zpnD0lHmEn1IizWacwAi/+d1I VAJl7idgmCx17Mxbn4HKLauSe8nbNqVyA8UCC54aSDZkSqsYTguYwaQMVMGQKRsnwOE+ 5gvN/QUtlgbKSTJwtP7YqaOksDaAb6JU0teEdY5OG0PPY97O5DjilCPZI2rtwC5L9Uob h+gKd//Et3mHCO+KW+SibRkHwm9uMnBheq1t+maC/dQEJu+rQXYUS6rpjZQ2AIMw6qoY /nftlJI4U9M2D/jdzx3cyvT6WH9ZUXM+2cY+L8glPnsesNowaCrdZ2SSq6wd6P2iozyD 2JhA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.249.202 with SMTP id yw10mr5506434pac.111.1392343977584; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:12:57 -0800 (PST) Sender: kob6558@gmail.com Received: by 10.67.30.1 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:12:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52FC8EDA.6090806@freebsd.org> References: <201402121443.44313.jhb@freebsd.org> <52FC8EDA.6090806@freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:12:57 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: TPWs9LeEQYiK6W0Z93j10sSBWLE Message-ID: Subject: Re: NEW_XORG and vt(4) in stable branches From: Kevin Oberman To: Niclas Zeising Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.17 Cc: ray@freebsd.org, "freebsd-x11@freebsd.org" , John Baldwin , 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: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 02:12:58 -0000 On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:22 AM, Niclas Zeising 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