Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:04:04 +0200 From: Danny Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Robert Noland <rnoland@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Unhappy Xorg upgrade Message-ID: <E1LTDds-000E7d-Eb@kabab.cs.huji.ac.il> In-Reply-To: <20090130195311.GK1755@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <6B7ABE80-35AB-4C44-B5A4-200E10DCC3AC@airwired.net> <E1LSP0B-0003Ds-H8@daland.home> <49819BD5.5040709@FreeBSD.org> <E1LSWHr-0009TS-P7@daland.home> <1233236412.1779.40.camel@wombat.2hip.net> <20090130195311.GK1755@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> As a general note, this is the second time in a row that an X.org > upgrade broke X for a significant number of people. IMO, this > suggests that our approach to X.org upgrades needs significant changes > (see below). X11 is a critical component for anyone who is using > FreeBSD as a desktop and having upgrades fail or come with significant > POLA violations and regressions for significant numbers of people is > not acceptable. > you took the words out of my mouth! Some days ago, I compiled wine from ports, among its dependencies was cups(why in the name of G_D?), and x11-xcb (which did not ring any special bells - stupidly I thought it meant some x11 cut buffer gizmo :-) Anyways, next day, I couldn't open windows (x11 not MS) from some hosts, some debuging later, it was xauth failing. Now xcb did ring bells! A year ago we found a bug in libxcb, where the treatment of xauth was broken, we sent a patch, but it is still waiting. BTW, I opend a PR, http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=131120, where it's now going the way the salmon, up stream, waiting for some kind sole to apply it. > On 2009-Jan-29 08:40:11 -0500, Robert Noland <rnoland@freebsd.org> wrote: > >I've had patches available for probably a couple of months now posted to > >freebsd-x11@. For the few people who tested it, I had no real issues > >reported. > > I didn't recall seeing any reference to patches so I went looking. > All I could find is a couple of references to a patchset existing > buried inside threads discussing specific problems with X. The > majority of people who didn't have those specific problems probably > skipped the thread and never saw that a patchset was available. > > When the X.org 7.0 upgrade was planned, a heads-up went out on a > number of mailing lists, together with a pointer to the patchset and > upgrade instructions and the upgrade did not proceed until both a > reasonable number of people reported success and reported problems had > been ironed out. Given the ongoing problems with code provided by > X.org, I suggest that this approach needs to be followed for every > future release of X.org until (if) the X.org Project demonstrates that > they can provide release-quality code. > > > This update also brings in support for a > >lot of people who are running newer hardware. > > And breaks support for lots of people who used to have functional > X servers. > merging /usr/X11R6 into /usr/local was a bad idea! cheers, danny > --=20 > Peter Jeremy > Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement > an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour. > > --+1TulI7fc0PCHNy3 > Content-Type: application/pgp-signature > Content-Disposition: inline > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (FreeBSD) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkmDWqcACgkQ/opHv/APuIdisQCgogeNZ8aXPDJ3gcZ/23Gyp/CV > bmsAn0efyI9cS6TWGFkofoYh6oFmtc5l > =i2p0 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --+1TulI7fc0PCHNy3-- >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E1LTDds-000E7d-Eb>