Hi,
Slowly i get my time back to work on FreeBSD, i'll start working next week
on a xorg update. if someone want to help, please ping me via privat mail
or irc.
- Miwi
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:00 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 11/15/2010 02:51, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
>
> It would be better if t
On 11/15/2010 02:51, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
It would be better if there was a repo for ports development on the
FreeBSD servers. There are several projects now that could use this
that I think this is warranted. It would increase their visibility and
lower the barrier to entry to attract contribu
On 14.11.2010 22:00, Kris Moore wrote:
> On Sun 14/11/10 3:44 PM , Anonymous wrote:
>> Kris Moore writes:
>>> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:24:44PM -0700, Warren Block wrote:
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 14/11/2010 18:18 Warren Block said the following:
>> On Sat,
on 15/11/2010 16:16 Gary Jennejohn said the following:
> 1.9.2 requires an update of MESA to a much more recent version than we
> currently have in ports. I tried the "modify Makefile and install"
> route yesterday and it failed because of that.
I have installed and been using newer Mesa for quit
On Monday, November 15, 2010 04:51:36 am Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> On Sunday 14 November 2010 23:02:42 Josh Paetzel wrote:
> > Area51 is quite cloneable it terms of infrastructure and what not. We
> > could very easily provide an SVN repo for experimental xoeg work.
>
> It would be better if there w
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:24:44 -0700 (MST)
Warren Block wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2010, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
> > on 14/11/2010 18:18 Warren Block said the following:
> >> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >>
> >>> I agree, but I am not sure how in the ports land we do an application
> >>>
On Sunday 14 November 2010 23:02:42 Josh Paetzel wrote:
> Area51 is quite cloneable it terms of infrastructure and what not. We
> could very easily provide an SVN repo for experimental xoeg work.
It would be better if there was a repo for ports development on the
FreeBSD servers. There are several
on 14/11/2010 21:06 Peter Jeremy said the following:
> On 2010-Nov-13 21:35:29 +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> I think that you refer to upgrades of the "Xorg bundle" as a whole.
>> Not sure if we've had any problems like that when upgrading between minor
>> versions of a single module, even such as
Area51 is quite cloneable it terms of infrastructure and what not. We could
very easily provide an SVN repo for experimental xoeg work.
Thanks,
Josh Paetzel
On Nov 14, 2010, at 3:00 PM, Kris Moore wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun 14/11/10 3:44 PM , Anonymous wrote:
>
>> Kris Moore writes:
>>>
On Sun 14/11/10 3:44 PM , Anonymous wrote:
> Kris Moore writes:
> > On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:24:44PM -0700, Warren Block wrote:
> >> On Sun, 14 Nov 2010, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >>
> >> > on 14/11/2010 18:18 Warren Block said the following:
> >> >> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010, Andriy Gapon wrote:
On 2010-Nov-13 21:35:29 +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>I think that you refer to upgrades of the "Xorg bundle" as a whole.
>Not sure if we've had any problems like that when upgrading between minor
>versions of a single module, even such as xorg server.
Looking back through my gripe list, apart from
Kris Moore writes:
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:24:44PM -0700, Warren Block wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2010, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>
>> > on 14/11/2010 18:18 Warren Block said the following:
>> >> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I agree, but I am not sure how in the ports land
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:24:44PM -0700, Warren Block wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2010, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
> > on 14/11/2010 18:18 Warren Block said the following:
> >> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >>
> >>> I agree, but I am not sure how in the ports land we do an application
> >>>
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 14/11/2010 18:18 Warren Block said the following:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010, Andriy Gapon wrote:
I agree, but I am not sure how in the ports land we do an application testing in
general. That is, I am sure there will be a lot of testers if the port updat
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 11:22:37 +0200
Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
> Can we update xorg-server to 1.7.7, the latest version on 1.7 branch?
> It looks like that would require only changing the version and regenerating
> the
> checksums.
>
> --
> Andriy Gapon
I'm going to update x11/pixman to 0.18.4 nex
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 09:35:29PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> Not sure if we've had any problems like that when upgrading between minor
> versions of a single module, even such as xorg server.
I don't remember, either.
> That is, I am sure there will be a lot of testers if the port update is
>
on 14/11/2010 18:18 Warren Block said the following:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
>> I agree, but I am not sure how in the ports land we do an application
>> testing in
>> general. That is, I am sure there will be a lot of testers if the port
>> update
>> is actually committed :
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010, Andriy Gapon wrote:
I agree, but I am not sure how in the ports land we do an application testing in
general. That is, I am sure there will be a lot of testers if the port update
is actually committed :-) but I am not sure how to test it in advance (given all
the possible h
on 13/11/2010 21:25 Mark Linimon said the following:
> There's this whole "testing" thing :-)
So, I thought taht I contributed one test report already :-)
> xorg seems to have an amazing ability to introduce regressions, especially
> in edge cases/older hardware. Each of the last N updates has b
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 05:11:41PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> Oh, forgot a need to simply bump port revisions of all xorg driver ports.
> That's perhaps a little bit laborious, but doesn't require any special skills.
> Or did you have something else in mind?
There's this whole "testing" thing :-
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 19:22:22 +0200
Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 08/11/2010 19:17 Christof Schulze said the following:
> > Hi,
> >
> Oh, forgot a need to simply bump port revisions of all xorg driver
> ports. That's perhaps a little bit laborious, but doesn't require
> any special skil
on 08/11/2010 19:17 Christof Schulze said the following:
> Hi,
>
Oh, forgot a need to simply bump port revisions of all xorg driver
ports. That's perhaps a little bit laborious, but doesn't require
any special skills. Or did you have something else in mind?
> more than just laboriou
Hi,
> >> Oh, forgot a need to simply bump port revisions of all xorg driver
> >> ports. That's perhaps a little bit laborious, but doesn't require
> >> any special skills. Or did you have something else in mind?
more than just laborious. It will break at least the Intel driver as
intel is now GEM
on 08/11/2010 17:52 Alexey Shuvaev said the following:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 05:11:41PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> on 08/11/2010 17:03 Alexey Shuvaev said the following:
>>> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 11:22:37AM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
Can we update xorg-server to 1.7.7, the latest
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 05:11:41PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 08/11/2010 17:03 Alexey Shuvaev said the following:
> > On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 11:22:37AM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >>
> >> Can we update xorg-server to 1.7.7, the latest version on 1.7 branch?
> >> It looks like that would requ
on 08/11/2010 17:03 Alexey Shuvaev said the following:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 11:22:37AM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>
>> Can we update xorg-server to 1.7.7, the latest version on 1.7 branch?
>> It looks like that would require only changing the version
>> and regenerating the
>> checksums.
>>
>
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 11:22:37AM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
> Can we update xorg-server to 1.7.7, the latest version on 1.7 branch?
> It looks like that would require only changing the version
> and regenerating the
> checksums.
>
Seems to be not so trivial. Look at this thread:
http://lists.
27 matches
Mail list logo
