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.
On 2009-Jan-29 08:40:11 -0500, Robert Noland <rnol...@freebsd.org> wrote: >I've had patches available for probably a couple of months now posted to >freebsd-...@. For the few people who tested it, I had no real issues >reported. 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. 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. > This update also brings in support for a >lot of people who are running newer hardware. And breaks support for lots of people who used to have functional X servers. -- Peter Jeremy Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour.
pgpPPV2GWegpz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
