Re: Reasons for keeping sc(4) and libvgl ?

From: Ed Maste <emaste_at_freebsd.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 01:23:42 UTC 
On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 15:02, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
>
> But the operative word there is "still", isn't it ?
>
> There is nothing which prevents vt(4) from doing the right thing is there ?

Just a simple matter of programming. We should indeed add dpms support to vt.