Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 21:23:42 -0400 From: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Reasons for keeping sc(4) and libvgl ? Message-ID: <CAPyFy2Ca83X042jc5QE-g=eHAfnukHScrTSyaLRi4UxeTBasJQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <202206211901.25LJ1uBd067376@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <20211126160454.3eb827365a02103169ab9adc@bidouilliste.com> <20220621201924.e9b96876c947140ac1f3b7a4@bidouilliste.com> <3d09c86a-9840-f8bf-4725-8098d958a01d@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl> <202206211901.25LJ1uBd067376@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 15:02, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > > But the operative word there is "still", isn't it ? > > There is nothing which prevents vt(4) from doing the right thing is there ? Just a simple matter of programming. We should indeed add dpms support to vt.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPyFy2Ca83X042jc5QE-g=eHAfnukHScrTSyaLRi4UxeTBasJQ>