Default configuration for xorg-drivers (WTF?)
Erik Trulsson
ertr1013 at student.uu.se
Tue Dec 29 10:11:21 UTC 2009
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 01:25:03AM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
> I confess. I haven't been keeing my ports at all up-to-date. (And this has
> already caused me grief in at least one instance.) Today I have been trying
> to rectify that, but I ran into a bit of a problem when I did:
>
> portupgrade -rR xorg-drivers
>
> A couple of hours later I'm staring at these errors:
>
> ---> Skipping 'x11-drivers/xorg-drivers' (xorg-drivers-7.3_3) because a requisite package 'xf86-video-cyrix-1.1.0_2' (x11-drivers/xf86-video-cyrix) failed (specify -k to force)
> ** Listing the failed packages (-:ignored / *:skipped / !:failed)
> - x11-drivers/xf86-video-nsc (marked as IGNORE)
> - x11-drivers/xf86-video-imstt (marked as IGNORE)
> - x11-drivers/xf86-video-cyrix (marked as IGNORE)
> - x11-drivers/xf86-video-via (marked as IGNORE)
> * x11-drivers/xorg-drivers (xorg-drivers-7.3_3)
>
> So OK. I get it. The xorg-drivers port wants all of these other chipset-
> specific drivers, some of which ain't in a buildable state right at the
> moment. Fine OK. I understand. But ummm.... if those drivers ain't
> buildable right now, does it really make a lot of sense to leave them
> *selected* as part of the *default* configuration for xorg-drivers ??
The *default* configuration for xorg-drivers is actually that those drivers
are not selected.
You probably set the configuration at some time in the past, and that
selection is now used instead of the defaults.
>
> Call me dense, but hope somebody can explain to me how this makes sense.
>
> So anyway, after googling around for good twenty minutes (cuz when it comes
> to either ports or X11, I don't know my own ass from my elbow) I learned
> that I had to manually cd into /usr/ports/x11-drivers/xorg-drivers and then
> "make config" and select the driver(s) I actualy needed, and *de-select*
> all of the (broken) ones listed above as "IGNORE". Fine. No problem.
> Even _I_ can do that. But ummm... wait just a second... oh s**t! My
> motherboad uses the VIA M8M890 northbridge, so I _do_ need that bleedin'
> VIA driver.
>
> So I google around another ten minutes or so and (luckily) I then come
> across this:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/lucky.freebsd.ports/msg/b40b3298710a3086
>
> OK. So I get it. Use "openchrome" instead of "via". No sweat.
>
> But ummm...... Why is it that in the current up-to-date files relating to
> the xorg-drivers port, the openchrome driver is, by default, *de-selected*?
The default for xorg-drivers is that openchrome is selected and via is not
selected.
>
> Should I be worried?
No. You just have an old config selection lying around that overrides the
default.
>
> Is there something broken about the current openchrome driver?
>
> Don't an awful lot of people (like me) need SOME sort of a driver for
> VIA-based graphics? If so, then why the bleep doesn't the default
> config for xorg-drivers provide any such?
>
> Since I was already trusting enough (stupid enough?) to proceed with my
> port upgrade to xorg-drivers-7.4_2 (WITH openchrome & WITHOUT the old
> VIA driver), upon my next reboot, and I going to be staring at a blank
> screen?
>
> I sure hope not.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-x11 at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-x11
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-x11-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
--
<Insert your favourite quote here.>
Erik Trulsson
ertr1013 at student.uu.se
More information about the freebsd-x11
mailing list