From owner-freebsd-x11@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 23 12:57:37 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-x11@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-x11@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B3CB16A422; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:57:37 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [83.120.8.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73B3B43D55; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:57:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (dazwtc@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k1NCvTxQ020112; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:57:34 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id k1NCvTD0020110; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:57:29 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from olli) From: Oliver Fromme Message-Id: <200602231257.k1NCvTD0020110@lurza.secnetix.de> To: lesi@FreeBSD.org (Dejan Lesjak) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:57:29 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <200602231023.k1NAN0hJ002309@freefall.freebsd.org> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL8] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.2 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:57:34 +0100 (CET) Cc: freebsd-x11@FreeBSD.org, bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/91504: x11-servers/xorg-server-snap doesn't build with WITH_MODULAR X-BeenThere: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: X11 on FreeBSD -- maintaining and support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:57:37 -0000 First of all, thanks for taking care of this PR! I think it can be closed. See below. Dejan Lesjak wrote: > Modular xorg ports come from same sources as "monolitic" build that is default > in FreeBSD ports but are currently "work in progress". Features that come from > them are currently covered by default ports that x11/xorg meta port depends > upon. Is there anything in particular you think would differ between libGL > port and xorg-libraries port? No. Actually it was just an attempt to get 3D hardware acceleration to work correctly, which I had problems with. So I decided to give the libGL port a try. However, that conflicted with xorg-libraries and led to the reported problem. If the "WITH_MODULAR" switch is currently experimental and not expected to work correctly out of the box, then I suggest it should be marked as experimental, so people don't spend hours trying to get it to work. :-) Other than that, I think this PR can be closed. In the meanwhile, Xorg 6.9 has been released, and 3D acceleration now works fine for me with the updated i915 DRI/DRM stuff. Therefore I have no need to play with libGL and WITH_MODULAR anymore. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. "Being really good at C++ is like being really good at using rocks to sharpen sticks." -- Thant Tessman