Date: 26 Oct 2000 02:43:21 -0700 From: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) To: Carlos A M dos Santos <casantos@cpmet.ufpel.tche.br> Cc: kris@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, qa@FreeBSD.ORG, taguchi@tohoku.iij.ad.jp Subject: Re: Making XFree86-4 the default Message-ID: <vqcvgugkkee.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: Carlos A M dos Santos's message of "Tue, 24 Oct 2000 12:52:45 %2B0000 (GMT)" References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0010241252140.377-100000@gate.cpmet.ufpel.tche.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* From: Carlos A M dos Santos <casantos@cpmet.ufpel.tche.br> * Try this: Thanks, committed. Are there any other outstanding issues re throwing the big switch and making XFree86-4 the default now? (As it says in the subject line...you guys thought I replied to an old mail by mistake? :) In case someone missed the previous discussion, "the XFree86-4 server doesn't support my card" is not a valid reason. We already have a whole bunch of xtt-* servers, which are based on 3.3.6 and should work just fine on such machines. The question is whether we want to have people who have cards that are supported by both 3.3.6 and 4.0 use the new server, and also have people use the 4.0 libraries etc. instead of 3.3.6 counterparts. I've been compiling the mid-week (non-ftp) packages with 4.0 for a while, and other than the HTML manpage stuff (which should not be hard to fix), most ports seem to compile just fine. Satoshi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?vqcvgugkkee.fsf>