Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:25:09 +0200 From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Robert Noland <rnoland@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Unhappy Xorg upgrade Message-ID: <20090130202509.GA52415@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <20090130195311.GK1755@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <6B7ABE80-35AB-4C44-B5A4-200E10DCC3AC@airwired.net> <E1LSP0B-0003Ds-H8@daland.home> <49819BD5.5040709@FreeBSD.org> <E1LSWHr-0009TS-P7@daland.home> <1233236412.1779.40.camel@wombat.2hip.net> <20090130195311.GK1755@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 06:53:11AM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote: > As a general note, this is the second time in a row that an X.org > upgrade broke X for a significant number of people. IMO, this > suggests that our approach to X.org upgrades needs significant changes > (see below). X11 is a critical component for anyone who is using > FreeBSD as a desktop and having upgrades fail or come with significant > POLA violations and regressions for significant numbers of people is > not acceptable. >=20 > On 2009-Jan-29 08:40:11 -0500, Robert Noland <rnoland@freebsd.org> wrote: > >I've had patches available for probably a couple of months now posted to > >freebsd-x11@. For the few people who tested it, I had no real issues > >reported. >=20 > I didn't recall seeing any reference to patches so I went looking. > All I could find is a couple of references to a patchset existing > buried inside threads discussing specific problems with X. The > majority of people who didn't have those specific problems probably > skipped the thread and never saw that a patchset was available. >=20 > When the X.org 7.0 upgrade was planned, a heads-up went out on a > number of mailing lists, together with a pointer to the patchset and > upgrade instructions and the upgrade did not proceed until both a > reasonable number of people reported success and reported problems had > been ironed out. Given the ongoing problems with code provided by > X.org, I suggest that this approach needs to be followed for every > future release of X.org until (if) the X.org Project demonstrates that > they can provide release-quality code. >=20 > > This update also brings in support for a > >lot of people who are running newer hardware. >=20 > And breaks support for lots of people who used to have functional > X servers. Just to give a different view on *this* update. I have exactly opposing experience. Both my workstations (job/home) have different kinds of Radeons, during the time from R200 to R600. X server 1.4.x was a complete disaster; I had to turn off dri to get rid of the constant hangs caused by X server looping somewhere in kernel. Robert' attempts to diagnose the cause of the issue, including consultation with upstream developers resulted in nothing. Moreover, at work I have two panels connected to Radeon; xrandr became absolutely impossible to configure without DRI. In contrast, 1.5.3 upgraded and I observed two issues, one was the Xorg sleeping in "ttyin", that was promptly fixed. Second was actually pretty good documented in updating, and it was my fault to not follow advise about recompiling libxcb dependencies. The libxcb issue is easily diagnosted by any user, BTW, using ldd XXX | grep compat. So far 1.5.3 + updated DRM works good on all my Radeons. And, I did not have a problem with i945GM on 1.4.2 and 1.5.3. --wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkmDYiUACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4g7ZgCePYqCYeywSsyQEBKG67DtbWiV IvgAoI3wV0QCkRFjew4aRmIWje0a2Mqw =lvYy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090130202509.GA52415>