On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 16:43 -0500, Craig Boston wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 03:24:02PM -0500, James Snyder wrote:
> > Window decorations died once while switching back and forth to another
> > virtual terminal and GL screensavers hang up (first frame rendered,
> > subsequent ones do not).
>
>
On Fri, 18 May 2007, James Snyder wrote:
Regarding the trials and tribulations. I did not, at first, get the message
that one shouldn't overlay the testing tree on top of the older tree, and did
the first libXft upgrade at that point. That failed and subsequently I
needed to do a series of
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 03:24:02PM -0500, James Snyder wrote:
> Window decorations died once while switching back and forth to another
> virtual terminal and GL screensavers hang up (first frame rendered,
> subsequent ones do not).
I've been meaning to post on this subject, though have been lookin
Another successful upgrade to report, although not without some trials
and tribulations. The end result is that I have things going with the
NVIDIA drivers, compositing works (I've even fired up Compiz and though
that's not 100% stable, it's quite usable so long as a few things are
avoided. Wi
So, I've upgraded one more machine, an X60 Tablet, and have run into
some issues on this one. First and most important, my ability to use the
1920x1200 resolution has disappeared. I've been using the 915resolution
tool to add this mode to the 945GM bios, but Xorg now insists there is
no mode of thi
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:06:02PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> At the same time, I think it's probably worthwhile to examine what the
> goals of the ports system are in this regard. If the goal is to always
> provide a fail-safe upgrade path for users then perhaps we should be
> talking about m
Brian Gruber wrote:
if you don't like the idea, that's fine, but since you
say there's been no user demand, i just thought i
should note that I tried portmaster a few months ago.
while there were things i like, i ultimately switched
back to portupgrade specifically because it lacked old
library
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 12:06:59AM +0200, Thierry Thomas wrote:
Le Lun 7 mai 07 ? 22:58:50 +0200, Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
?crivait?:
The other problem is that if you're going to automatically update all
the dependencies for a port, you need to upgrade all the st
Thank you, Florent.
I understand that we need to be patient another two days...
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Ken Yamada wrote:
> From: "Rene Ladan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Currently most development happens in the git repository. You can
>> look at http://git.xbsd.org/?p=freebsd/ports.git;a=summary to see what
>> goes on.
>
> No, "http://wiki.freebsd.org/ModularXorg"; says;
>
> --Quote--
> Disclaimer
>
From: "Rene Ladan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Currently most development happens in the git repository. You can
> look at http://git.xbsd.org/?p=freebsd/ports.git;a=summary to see what
> goes on.
No, "http://wiki.freebsd.org/ModularXorg"; says;
--Quote--
Disclaimer
If you read about the git reposito
2007/5/8, Ken Yamada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Would you please inform the progress (or, schedule), so far?
port tree looks very quiet in these few days and I cannot see any xorg7.2 in
my cvsup'd port tree...
Currently most development happens in the git repository. You can
look at http://git.
Would you please inform the progress (or, schedule), so far?
port tree looks very quiet in these few days and I cannot see any xorg7.2 in
my cvsup'd port tree...
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/f
Brian Gruber wrote:
Ok, no worries then. I have no plans to add that
feature at this time,
partly because there has been no user demand for it,
and mostly
because I don't like the idea. I recognize however
that reasonable
minds may differ on that topic.
if you don't like the idea, that's
>Ok, no worries then. I have no plans to add that
feature at this time,
>partly because there has been no user demand for it,
and mostly
>because I don't like the idea. I recognize however
that reasonable
>minds may differ on that topic.
if you don't like the idea, that's fine, but since you
sa
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 06:34:36PM -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 18:26 -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > >>>I dispute the correctness of this entry. The old libraries in
> > > >>>lib/compat/pkg are not linked to directly by new builds. The only
> > > >>>situation in whic
On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 18:26 -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > >>>I dispute the correctness of this entry. The old libraries in
> > >>>lib/compat/pkg are not linked to directly by new builds. The only
> > >>>situation in which something might end up being linked to 2 versions
> > >>>of the library i
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 05:02:52PM -0500, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> On Mon, 07 May 2007 15:44:14 -0500, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 03:35:48PM -0500, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> >>On Mon, 07 May 2007 15:14:48 -0500, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 12:06:59AM +0200, Thierry Thomas wrote:
> Le Lun 7 mai 07 ? 22:58:50 +0200, Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ?crivait?:
>
> > The other problem is that if you're going to automatically update all
> > the dependencies for a port, you need to upgrade all the stuff that
>
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 12:06:59AM +0200, Thierry Thomas wrote:
> Le Lun 7 mai 07 ? 22:58:50 +0200, Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ?crivait?:
>
> > The other problem is that if you're going to automatically update all
> > the dependencies for a port, you need to upgrade all the stuff that
>
Le Lun 7 mai 07 à 22:58:50 +0200, Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
écrivait :
> The other problem is that if you're going to automatically update all
> the dependencies for a port, you need to upgrade all the stuff that
> depends on them as well. For example the gettext upgrade got triggered
>
On Mon, 07 May 2007 15:44:14 -0500, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 03:35:48PM -0500, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 15:14:48 -0500, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 03:09:06PM -0500, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
>
>>>
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 04:44:14PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 03:35:48PM -0500, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 May 2007 15:14:48 -0500, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 03:09:06PM -0500, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> > >
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 03:35:48PM -0500, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> On Mon, 07 May 2007 15:14:48 -0500, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 03:09:06PM -0500, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> >
> >>>No, at a minimum I am not comfortable recommending its use until it
>
On Mon, 07 May 2007 15:14:48 -0500, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 03:09:06PM -0500, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
>No, at a minimum I am not comfortable recommending its use until it
>saves old shared libraries across updates (I sent you email about this
>a while
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 03:09:06PM -0500, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> >No, at a minimum I am not comfortable recommending its use until it
> >saves old shared libraries across updates (I sent you email about this
> >a while ago), which is a vital safety and robustness mechanism.
>
> I am one of peo
On Mon, 07 May 2007 13:42:31 -0500, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 11:38:46AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>After many months of hard work (mostly by flz@, as well as others) we
>are approaching readiness of the xorg 7.2 upgrade.
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 11:38:46AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Hi all,
After many months of hard work (mostly by flz@, as well as others) we
are approaching readiness of the xorg 7.2 upgrade. Because this is a
huge and disruptive change, we're going to
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 11:38:46AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >After many months of hard work (mostly by flz@, as well as others) we
> >are approaching readiness of the xorg 7.2 upgrade. Because this is a
> >huge and disruptive change, we're going to approach
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Hi all,
After many months of hard work (mostly by flz@, as well as others) we
are approaching readiness of the xorg 7.2 upgrade. Because this is a
huge and disruptive change, we're going to approach it very carefully.
Good news that this is moving forward! Congrats to all
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 15:37 -0400, Robert Huff wrote:
> Danny Pansters writes:
>
> > /usr/X11R6 was a long standing bug about to be fixed once and for
> > all. IIRC it originated from fixed paths in the old XFree. It
> > won't be missed or mourned :)
>
> While I understand why this is go
Danny Pansters writes:
> /usr/X11R6 was a long standing bug about to be fixed once and for
> all. IIRC it originated from fixed paths in the old XFree. It
> won't be missed or mourned :)
While I understand why this is going to happen, I've been of
the opinion it ought to be retained wi
On Thursday 03 May 2007 19:12:45 [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
> mal content wrote:
> >> /usr/local
> >
> > Hello.
> >
> > Why is FreeBSD using /usr/local instead of /usr/X11R7?
> >
> > thanks,
> > MC
>
> A version dependant directory structure hasn't been a good idea in the
> first place. No one was really
On 03/05/07, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 05:43:47PM +0100, mal content wrote:
> >/usr/local
>
> Hello.
>
> Why is FreeBSD using /usr/local instead of /usr/X11R7?
/usr/local is the new de facto standard, AFAIK no-one is using
/usr/X11R7.
Kris
Oh, OK.
thank
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 05:43:47PM +0100, mal content wrote:
> >/usr/local
>
> Hello.
>
> Why is FreeBSD using /usr/local instead of /usr/X11R7?
/usr/local is the new de facto standard, AFAIK no-one is using
/usr/X11R7.
Kris
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.
mal content wrote:
>> /usr/local
>
> Hello.
>
> Why is FreeBSD using /usr/local instead of /usr/X11R7?
>
> thanks,
> MC
A version dependant directory structure hasn't been a good idea in the first
place. No one was really able to tell weather to put a port into /usr/X11R6 or
/usr/local anyway
/usr/local
Hello.
Why is FreeBSD using /usr/local instead of /usr/X11R7?
thanks,
MC
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 03:31:59PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After many months of hard work (mostly by flz@, as well as others) we
> are approaching readiness of the xorg 7.2 upgrade. Because this is a
> huge and disruptive change, we're going to approach it very carefully.
> The
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 03:31:59PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> 3) Once the proposed upgrade method is in place, we will publish a
> tarball of the prepared ports tree and request that *all* our ports
> developers test the upgrade on their own machines before it is
> committed to CVS. There are m
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 11:36:03PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Does this freeze apply to the whole ports tree, or only (relatively
> directly) affected parts of the tree?
The latter is basically most of the tree :-)
mcl
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 11:36:03PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > In particular all ports committers are expected to participate in this
> > process of eating our own dogfood :)
>
> Our marketing folks educated me to use the phrase "drinking our own
>
On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 15:43 -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 02:40:26PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 2 May 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >
> > >Hi all,
> > >
> > >After many months of hard work (mostly by flz@, as well as others) we
> > >are appr
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> In particular all ports committers are expected to participate in this
> process of eating our own dogfood :)
Our marketing folks educated me to use the phrase "drinking our own
champagne" instead. :)
> 5) CVS will stay frozen for a period to be evalua
On Wed 02 May 2007 14:05, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 2 May 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> >Hi all,
> >
> >After many months of hard work (mostly by flz@, as well as others) we
> >are approaching readiness of the xorg 7.2 upgrade. Because this is a
> >huge and disruptive chang
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 03:26:25PM -0600, Coleman Kane wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 15:43 -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 02:40:26PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2 May 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > >
> > > >Hi all,
> > > >
> > > >Aft
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Martin Tournoij wrote:
On Wed 02 May 2007 14:05, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Hi all,
After many months of hard work (mostly by flz@, as well as others) we
are approaching readiness of the xorg 7.2 upgrade. Because this is
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Hi all,
After many months of hard work (mostly by flz@, as well as others) we
are approaching readiness of the xorg 7.2 upgrade. Because this is a
huge and disruptive change, we're going to approach it very carefully.
I tried X 7.2 about a week ago,
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 02:40:26PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
Secondly, X7.2 as I tried it wouldn't "startx" if some other login had
created a .Xauthority file. While "rm .Xauthority" solved the problem
completely, I don't think this is u
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 02:40:26PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 2 May 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> >Hi all,
> >
> >After many months of hard work (mostly by flz@, as well as others) we
> >are approaching readiness of the xorg 7.2 upgrade. Because this is a
> >huge and
Hi all,
After many months of hard work (mostly by flz@, as well as others) we
are approaching readiness of the xorg 7.2 upgrade. Because this is a
huge and disruptive change, we're going to approach it very carefully.
The current plan is the following:
1) Tag ports with PRE_XORG_7 and freeze the
50 matches
Mail list logo
