From owner-freebsd-x11@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 14 10:52:09 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 3C576404; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 10:52:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.dlink.ua (smtp.dlink.ua [193.138.187.146]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5C711A23; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 10:52:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from terran (unknown [192.168.99.1]) (Authenticated sender: ray) by smtp.dlink.ua (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E0E91C496A; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:52:00 +0200 (EET) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:55:42 +0200 From: Aleksandr Rybalko To: John Baldwin Subject: Re: NEW_XORG and vt(4) in stable branches Message-Id: <20140214125542.d21d2d28cbe2a1f9076455e3@ddteam.net> In-Reply-To: <201402121443.44313.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <201402121443.44313.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.2.0 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd9.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ray@freebsd.org, x11@freebsd.org, 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 10:52:09 -0000 On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 14:43:44 -0500 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. > > 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? Are any of our assumptions above incorrect? > > I know that on the Graphics page on the wiki, the x11@ team has a target date > of enabling NEW_XORG for stable branches (is that 9 and 10?) in March. Do we > think vt(4) can be merged to stable/10 and stable/9 before then? Just checked possibility of merging vt(4) to stable/9 - think it is possible, but have to test, since there is a lot of difference in teken. First look on difference show me merging have not to be a big problem. stable/10 - no problem. As I already said to Niclas, I will try to done merge to both to middle of March. > > -- > John Baldwin Thanks. WBW -- Aleksandr Rybalko