ATI radeon 3450 with new xorg

[Kevin Oberman]

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Max Brazhnikov <makc at freebsd.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:31:05 -0700 Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Dimitry Andric <dim at freebsd.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On 30 Jul 2014, at 19:30, Carlos Jacobo Puga Medina <cpm at fbsd.es>
> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 19:46:36 +0300
> > > > Arto Pekkanen <isoa at kapsi.fi> wrote:
> > > >> Is there a chance this patch would be MFC'd?
> > >
> > > I'm not sure how the branching works with ports, but this would
> probably
> > > be a good candidate for merging to whatever the latest "stable" branch
> > > is.
> > >
> > >
> > > > His patch fixes my problem, but I don't know if Dimitry is waiting
> for
> > > more opinions favourable before commit it.
> > >
> > > Hi Carlos,
> > >
> > > Thanks for testing, it is good to know that it works on real hardware!
> > > I have only been able to test it on a virtualized environment myself...
> > >
> > > In any case, I am not a ports committer, so the maintainer(s) should
> > > commit it, or give their approval for me to do so.
> > >
> > > -Dimitry
> > >
> > > Dimitry and Carlos,
> >
> > Ports don't branch. They are only tagged at the points of FreeBSD
> releases,
> > so all commits are to head. As a result, the term MFC is not appropriate.
>
> oh, they do: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/branches/2014Q3/
> and MFC (MFH) is appropriate.
>

Thanks for the correction.I had assumed that quarterlies were just tags. So
MFH is a valid thing, though it is not clear to me how often it is
desirable to do so. This looks a like a good candidate, though thee may be
reasons that x11@ sees that I don't. (Also, I don't currently use any
Radeons.)
--
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
E-mail: rkoberman at gmail.com