Should 9.3 carry a warning about NEW_XORG

[John Marshall]

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.

-- 
John Marshall
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20140707/8e7dd2f4/attachment.sig>