--LyciRD1jyfeSSjG0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 11:46 -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> The TL;DR reason for going up to building with new-xorg is because
> without it, an increasing number of X related ports plainly won't
> build anymore. They assume the newer X and DRI libraries.
Thank you for this explanation: it helps.
> So the choice is (a) new_xorg and pain, (b) no new_xorg and a lot of X
> packages not getting upgraded any further, (c) more work on the ports
> maintainers to try and figure out ways to work around an increasingly
> impossible situation. There's also (d) - don't bother with 9.3.
and (e) add WITHOUT_NEW_XORG to make.conf and upgrade to 9.3;
understanding that this really is the end of the road for X on older
hardware. 9.2 is EOL in a couple of months, so upgrading to 9.3 without
breaking X makes sense to me.
> The X ports team has a fast moving target to keep track of and we're
> still not anywhere near the bleeding edge of Linux graphics rendering
> support and all the graphics stuff that moves with it. As much as I
> hate to see lots of churn, it's a losing battle.
Again, thanks for explaining the X-related development/upgrade dilemma.
The reason for my OP was that bad things happened, unexpectedly, with NO
warning or explanation.
--=20
John Marshall
--LyciRD1jyfeSSjG0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iEYEARECAAYFAlO6b0EACgkQw/tAaKKahKIX3QCghPAgvjHe7f1JGytBR8csFVsp
xjcAoMeWmnNxmf41jxrztlXOeR0gSG+z
=iXWy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--LyciRD1jyfeSSjG0--