Re: XFree86 4.2 minor woes
On May 14 at 11:16, JJ Behrens spoke: i've always started X with -bpp 24 in /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/xdm/Xservers to get the correct depth for xdm. it's not taken from XF86Config, iirc. Hmm: # From XF86Config Section Screen DefaultDepth 16 # - has always worked for me. Am I missing something? The DefaultDepth of the config file is considered when you call startx or XFree86 without any color depth option. But if XFree86 is called via the display manager it might supply it's own depth option (`ps|grep X`). -Hanspeter To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-stable in the body of the message
Re: XFree86 4.2 minor woes
On May 15 at 02:59, Aidan Skinner spoke: Yeah. I tried it with startx -- -depth 24, which fixed the 16 colours problem (thanks!). I had thought about that, but changing my XF86Config to *only* have 24bpp @ 1024x786 didn't seem to make a difference. I would have thought this would have meant it actually ran at 24bpp. ;) Did you enter the DefaultDepth in the section Screen? The location of the config file may have changed with 4.0. Some installations put it in /etc/X11/XF86Config. -Hanspeter To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-stable in the body of the message
Re: XFree86 4.2 minor woes
I had thought about that, but changing my XF86Config to *only* have 24bpp @ 1024x786 didn't seem to make a difference. I would have thought this would have meant it actually ran at 24bpp. ;) Interesting, because thts exactly what I do and it works for me. I never had a problem with colour depth if I set the DefaultDepth to 24 (or 16 or whatever) but I used to take out the other entries to ensure it would only use that one. i.e. mine now looks like: Section Screen Identifier Screen 1 Device Matrox Mystique Monitor Gateway EV700 DefaultDepth 16 Subsection Display Depth 16 Modes 1024x768 ViewPort0 0 EndSubsection EndSection -pcf. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-stable in the body of the message
Re: XFree86 4.2
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 09:31:47AM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote: From: Mike Murphree [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 06:32:34 -0600 Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tuesday 05 March 2002 04:03 am, Herve Quiroz wrote: I have not been member of this list until recently so I have probably missed some discussion on the topic. Anyway, what is going on with Xfree86 v4.2 ? I once had seen XFree86 4.2 on freshports.org but then it came back to 4.1 few days later... NetBSD has already 4.2 in -stable so why not FreeBSD ? The port was at 4.2.0 shortly before the release of FreeBSD 4.5 and it was rolled back to 4.1.9 because of insufficient testing time before the release. It has never been put back... I've been running 4.2.0 since that time with zero problems. This is not why the 4.2 port was pulled. The main reason was that XF86-4.2 was added to the ports just prior to the release of FreeBSD 4.5. It was felt that it was unwise to include a new release of XFree86 that was largely untested in a new release of FreeBSD, so the port was pulled. At the same time it was decided that it was a good time to convert XFree86 from a port to a meta-port. This has been under discussion for some time and the 4.2 release looked like a good time to cut over. So the 4.2 port appeared and disappeared from the tree, but is still available and works fine. (If you don't know what a meta-port is, look at /usr/ports/x11/gnome/Makefile.) So what are teh _advantegse_ of a metaport? O'm dealing with on _disdvantage_ at the moment. For reasons involving my own stupidity, I find myself with a broken Gnome installlation even though the ports db thinks it' fine. But since it's a metaport, I can't just do portupgrade -f gnome :-( Must be a positive side to this, right? Otherwise you could just install all of it with a trivial shell loop over the various appropriate directories in the ports tree. -- They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-stable in the body of the message
Re: XFree86 4.2
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 16:25:26 -0500 From: stan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 09:31:47AM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote: From: Mike Murphree [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 06:32:34 -0600 Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tuesday 05 March 2002 04:03 am, Herve Quiroz wrote: I have not been member of this list until recently so I have probably missed some discussion on the topic. Anyway, what is going on with Xfree86 v4.2 ? I once had seen XFree86 4.2 on freshports.org but then it came back to 4.1 few days later... NetBSD has already 4.2 in -stable so why not FreeBSD ? The port was at 4.2.0 shortly before the release of FreeBSD 4.5 and it was rolled back to 4.1.9 because of insufficient testing time before the release. It has never been put back... I've been running 4.2.0 since that time with zero problems. This is not why the 4.2 port was pulled. The main reason was that XF86-4.2 was added to the ports just prior to the release of FreeBSD 4.5. It was felt that it was unwise to include a new release of XFree86 that was largely untested in a new release of FreeBSD, so the port was pulled. At the same time it was decided that it was a good time to convert XFree86 from a port to a meta-port. This has been under discussion for some time and the 4.2 release looked like a good time to cut over. So the 4.2 port appeared and disappeared from the tree, but is still available and works fine. (If you don't know what a meta-port is, look at /usr/ports/x11/gnome/Makefile.) So what are teh _advantegse_ of a metaport? O'm dealing with on _disdvantage_ at the moment. For reasons involving my own stupidity, I find myself with a broken Gnome installlation even though the ports db thinks it' fine. But since it's a metaport, I can't just do portupgrade -f gnome :-( Must be a positive side to this, right? Otherwise you could just install all of it with a trivial shell loop over the various appropriate directories in the ports tree. Hmm. You have hit on the problem with meta-ports. I don't install the gnome meta-port for just that reason. But a meta-port is a good thing because it allows a bunch of ports that go together to be easily installed. In you case the only good solutions are to either delete all of the ports in the meta-port and then re-install it or to do a portupgrade -f on each of the dependent ports. At least it's easy to spot them in the Makefile for gnome. In the case of X (and not too different from Gnome) you have a very large port that can take a VERY long time to build and install. But normally there is no really reason to rebuild the whole thing. Better to just update the part that actually changed. So the trick is to set up a meta-port. This allows the easy installation of XF86-4 but it only required that you update the pieces that have changed and not the whole monster. If the server is patched, the installation of clients, libraries, and fonts is a total waste of time. When XF86-4.2 is available as a meta-port I will probably not install it. I will remove the existing XFree86 and look at the Makefile and simply do a portinstall on each of the dependencies in the port. R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-stable in the body of the message
Re: XFree86 4.2
On Tuesday 05 March 2002 05:00 pm, Kevin Oberman wrote: Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 16:25:26 -0500 From: stan [EMAIL PROTECTED] the 4.2 port appeared and disappeared from the tree, but is still available and works fine. (If you don't know what a meta-port is, look at /usr/ports/x11/gnome/Makefile.) So what are teh _advantegse_ of a metaport? O'm dealing with on _disdvantage_ at the moment. For reasons involving my own stupidity, I find myself with a broken Gnome installlation even though the ports db thinks it' fine. But since it's a metaport, I can't just do portupgrade -f gnome :-( Must be a positive side to this, right? Otherwise you could just install all of it with a trivial shell loop over the various appropriate directories in the ports tree. Why not portupgrade -R -f gnome? -- Brian T. Schellenberger . . . . . . . [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Brian, the man from Babble-On . . . . [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) ME -- http://www.babbleon.org http://www.eff.org -- GOOD GUYS -- http://www.programming-freedom.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-stable in the body of the message
Re: XFree86 4.2
Must be a positive side to this, right? Otherwise you could just install all of it with a trivial shell loop over the various appropriate directories in the ports tree. Will fix things like stale dependencies on imake or xf86libs-4 -- David W. Chapman Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Raintree Network Services, Inc. www.inethouston.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD Committer www.FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-stable in the body of the message
Re: XFree86 4.2
On Tuesday 05 March 2002 02:13 pm, Jonathan Chen wrote: On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 06:32:34AM -0600, Mike Murphree wrote: On Tuesday 05 March 2002 04:03 am, Herve Quiroz wrote: I have not been member of this list until recently so I have probably missed some discussion on the topic. Anyway, what is going on with Xfree86 v4.2 ? I once had seen XFree86 4.2 on freshports.org but then it came back to 4.1 few days later... NetBSD has already 4.2 in -stable so why not FreeBSD ? The port was at 4.2.0 shortly before the release of FreeBSD 4.5 and it was rolled back to 4.1.9 because of insufficient testing time before the release. It has never been put back... I've been running 4.2.0 since that time with zero problems. I have noticed that there's a problem running xv with 4.2. If you try viewing multiple files of the same framesize, it sometimes doesn't refresh correctly. Works fine under 4.1.x Yes, though if you go backward and forward again it usually fixes itself. Weird. -- Brian T. Schellenberger . . . . . . . [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Brian, the man from Babble-On . . . . [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) ME -- http://www.babbleon.org http://www.eff.org -- GOOD GUYS -- http://www.programming-freedom.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-stable in the body of the message
