Unhappy Xorg upgrade

[Danny Braniss]

> 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 at freebsd.org> wrote:
> >I've had patches available for probably a couple of months now posted to
> >freebsd-x11 at .  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--
>