From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 17 13:47:08 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@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 A6EAA22E; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 13:47:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C7011DF3; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 13:47:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.20] (unknown [130.255.19.191]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA6D5438EB; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 08:46:51 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <534FDB3B.10106@marino.st> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:46:35 +0200 From: John Marino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ryan Frederick , marino@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] WITH_NEW_XORG is now the default on FreeBSD 10 and 9 stable References: <534ECCE7.7050204@freebsd.org> <1397695667853-5904246.post@n5.nabble.com> <1397739683132-5904376.post@n5.nabble.com> <534FD631.3090501@gmail.com> <534FD6DF.8020508@marino.st> <534FD9BD.3080202@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <534FD9BD.3080202@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 13:47:08 -0000 On 4/17/2014 15:40, Ryan Frederick wrote: > On 04/17/2014 08:27 AM, John Marino wrote: >> On 4/17/2014 15:25, Ryan Frederick wrote: >>> I think the updates may have broken INDEX. Running `pkg version -Ivl >>> "<"` (or `pkg_version -Ivl "<"` on my non-pkgng systems) produces the >>> following: >>> >>> libGL-7.6.1_4 < needs updating (index has 9.1.7) >>> libdrm-2.4.17_1 < needs updating (index has 2.4.52) >>> >>> ...despite both ports being up to date. >>> >> >> Are you sure this isn't a NEW_XORG / OLD_XORG issue? >> >> John >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> > > I don't believe so if you mean in terms of what's set in make.conf. I've > never set WITH_NEW_XORG or WITHOUT_NEW_XORG in make.conf on any of my > systems. I did follow the instructions in UPDATING for systems that had > libGL and/or dri installed. > from: graphics/libGL/bsd.mesalib.mk > .if defined(WITH_NEW_XORG) > MESABASEVERSION= 9.1.7 > # if there is a subversion, include the '-' between 7.11-rc2 for example. > MESASUBVERSION= > PLIST_SUB+= OLD="@comment " NEW="" > .else > MESABASEVERSION= 7.6.1 > MESASUBVERSION= > PLIST_SUB+= OLD="" NEW="@comment " > .endif from: graphics/libdrm/Makefile > LIBDRM_VERSION= 2.4.52 > LIBDRM_REVISION=0 > PLIST_SUB+= OLD="@comment " NEW="" > EXTRA_PATCHES+= ${FILESDIR}/extra-configure \ > ${FILESDIR}/extra-tests_modetest_Makefile.in \ > ${FILESDIR}/extra-tests_modetest_modetest.c \ > ${FILESDIR}/extra-tests_modetest_strchrnul.c \ > ${FILESDIR}/extra-tests__radeon__radeon_ttm.c > CONFIGURE_ARGS+=--disable-vmwgfx > .else > CONFIGURE_ARGS= --enable-nouveau-experimental-api > LIBDRM_VERSION= 2.4.17 > LIBDRM_REVISION=1 > PLIST_SUB+= OLD="" NEW="@comment " NOUVEAU="" > .endif > > .if ${ARCH} == amd64 || ${ARCH} == i386 > PLIST_SUB+= INTEL_DRIVER="" > PLIST_SUB+= RADEON_DRIVERS="" > .elif ${ARCH} == ia64 || ${ARCH} == powerpc || ${ARCH} == powerpc64 > PLIST_SUB+= INTEL_DRIVER="@comment " > PLIST_SUB+= RADEON_DRIVERS="" > .else > PLIST_SUB+= INTEL_DRIVER="@comment " > PLIST_SUB+= RADEON_DRIVERS="@comment " > .endif You see anything familiar there? Do you still think your issue is not related to OLD/NEW XORG? my guess is the index defaults to something your system isn't. John