On 28 December 2012 04:02, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
> It doesn't look like the FreeBSD ports SVN repository is used to its
> full potential. SVN allows branching and creation of experimental
> versions of the tree very easily and cheaply, yet all the experimental
> repositories references so far are
http://wiki.freebsd.org/Git
--
View this message in context:
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/9-1-RC3-xorg-input-mouse-xfce4-panel-tp5772549p5772798.html
Sent from the freebsd-stable mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.o
xorg trunk repo predates SVN for ports.
--
View this message in context:
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/9-1-RC3-xorg-input-mouse-xfce4-panel-tp5772549p5772797.html
Sent from the freebsd-stable mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
freebsd-stab
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 2:08 PM, CeDeROM wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
>> It doesn't look like the FreeBSD ports SVN repository is used to its
>> full potential. (...)
>
> Yea, btw why FreeBSD does not use GIT? I have been using it for some
> time and I have not
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
> It doesn't look like the FreeBSD ports SVN repository is used to its
> full potential. (...)
Yea, btw why FreeBSD does not use GIT? I have been using it for some
time and I have not seen better source code revision utility. GIT is
really am
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 1:51 PM, CeDeROM wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
>> You're misunderstanding a few things. There are no "release packages"
>> for any release of FreeBSD. What you have on the install discs are
>> just "snapshot" packages built from the ports
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
> You're misunderstanding a few things. There are no "release packages"
> for any release of FreeBSD. What you have on the install discs are
> just "snapshot" packages built from the ports tree as it happened (...)
I know, I hoped 1.7.2 driv
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 1:33 PM, CeDeROM wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Jakub Lach wrote:
>> xf86-input-mouse-1.8.1 is in dev trunk xorg tree. (see -x11).
>
> This is the only sensible solution to use new driver. HAL and
> AllowEmptyInput are EXCLUSIVE and cause very strange behavior -
1.8.1 is in staging area (dev trunk). It will be not in packages distributed
with 9.1. They were just apps which happened to be in ports tree
at packages building for release time. There is only one branch of ports.
hal is less and less used/supported and it was never meant to be
used with Allow
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Jakub Lach wrote:
> xf86-input-mouse-1.8.1 is in dev trunk xorg tree. (see -x11).
This is the only sensible solution to use new driver. HAL and
AllowEmptyInput are EXCLUSIVE and cause very strange behavior - I have
just noticed that again on another desktop - scre
There is nothing going into "release" what was not in ports
tree. (There is no release packages at all, apart from ports
that's just happened to be in regular tree at release time.
Followed by port tree slush.)
xf86-input-mouse-1.8.1 is in dev trunk xorg tree. (see -x11).
--
View this messag
Hello Warren :-)
I did so. I also talked about that problem some time ago. I think
1.7.2 xorg mouse driver has this fix and no manual configuration is
necessary. It would be nice to include 1.7.2 in the release packages
:-)
Best regards :-)
Tomek
--
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012, CeDeROM wrote:
Hello :-)
I have found some issues with 9.1-RC3 packages/configuration using
binary packages:
1. xorg-input-mouse is old driver (?) that has the issue mentioned on
the list (current?) - the mouse is not always detected at first xorg
run. Please make sure 9.1
Hello :-)
I have found some issues with 9.1-RC3 packages/configuration using
binary packages:
1. xorg-input-mouse is old driver (?) that has the issue mentioned on
the list (current?) - the mouse is not always detected at first xorg
run. Please make sure 9.1-RELEASE use new mouse driver that has
14 matches
Mail list logo
