NEW_XORG and vt(4) in stable branches

Aleksandr Rybalko ray at
Fri Feb 14 10:52:09 UTC 2014

On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 14:43:44 -0500
John Baldwin <jhb at> wrote:

> I just wanted to drop a note to see if everyone is on the same page here.  I 
> know that core@ has been discussing the NEW_XORG internally quite a bit, but 
> that has all been internal to core@ so far.
> Our current feeling is that we would like to not enable NEW_XORG by default 
> for the packages for a given src branch until vt(4) has been merged to that 
> branch.  We do not think that vt(4) needs to be enabled by default in the 
> branch; just having it available as an option as it is in HEAD would be 
> sufficient.  Our understanding is that merging vt(4) in its current-ish form 
> to stable/10 and stable/9 is quite feasible and not a major nightmare.  We do 
> not feel that it is necessary to merge to stable/8 as drm2 isn't merged to 
> stable/8 either.  (Our assumption is that stable/8 will just stay with the old 
> Xorg and the ports tree will have to support old Xorg until 8.x support in 
> ports is EOL'd.)
> Does that sound sensible?  Are any of our assumptions above incorrect?
> I know that on the Graphics page on the wiki, the x11@ team has a target date 
> of enabling NEW_XORG for stable branches (is that 9 and 10?) in March.  Do we 
> think vt(4) can be merged to stable/10 and stable/9 before then?

Just checked possibility of merging vt(4) to stable/9 - think it is
possible, but have to test, since there is a lot of difference in
teken. First look on difference show me merging have not to be a big

stable/10 - no problem.

As I already said to Niclas, I will try to done merge to both to middle
of March.

> -- 
> John Baldwin

Aleksandr Rybalko <ray at>

More information about the freebsd-x11 mailing list