I agree with all you say. This sort of thing is the achilles heel of
ports. I'd like to see a beta port exist side by side with the old
version, for massive ports like X, KDE, etc, until things stabilize.
Alex Goncharov wrote:
No -- a patch might (*should*, for this kind of a disruptive
On Jan 31, 2009, at 2:43 PM, bf wrote:
Alex:
I can understand your frustration. The Xorg update, although it helps
a lot of people, is inevitably going to cause problems for some,
because
it is run by so many people in different ways with a wide variety of
hardware. It's comparable in
On Sat, 2009-01-31 at 16:25 -0500, Alex Goncharov wrote:
,--- You/vehemens (Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:53:58 -0800) *
| In general when upgrading, you take your chances. If a port upgrade
| fails, you should fall back to what worked.
So, a *fundamental* (practically an OS component) port is
On Saturday 31 January 2009 04:20:26 pm Alex Goncharov wrote:
,--- You/vehemens (Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:54:42 -0800) *
| On Saturday 31 January 2009 01:25:21 pm Alex Goncharov wrote:
| So, a *fundamental* (practically an OS component) port is brought in
| -- and it disables my system.
,--- Alexandre \ (Sun, 01 Feb 2009 12:03:06 -0500) *
| When I install the old packages, I can no longer rebuild and install
| new (say `csup'ed on 2009-03-01) port components, as one whole -- I
| can only do it selectively, excluding from the upgrade most
| X-dependent things. That sucks
,--- You/vehemens (Sun, 01 Feb 2009 10:34:50 -0800) *
| On Saturday 31 January 2009 04:20:26 pm Alex Goncharov wrote:
| ,--- You/vehemens (Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:54:42 -0800) *
|
| | On Saturday 31 January 2009 01:25:21 pm Alex Goncharov wrote:
| | So, a *fundamental* (practically an OS
,--- You/Matthew (Sun, 1 Feb 2009 14:48:15 -0600) *
| On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 04:25:21PM -0500 I heard the voice of
| Alex Goncharov, and lo! it spake thus:
| Csup can only go forward -- or can it go back?)
|
| You can specify a date in a supfile since, like, ever.
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 04:25:21PM -0500 I heard the voice of
Alex Goncharov, and lo! it spake thus:
Csup can only go forward -- or can it go back?)
You can specify a date in a supfile since, like, ever.
--
Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fulle...@over-yonder.net
Systems/Network
On Sunday 01 February 2009 11:22:52 am Alex Goncharov wrote:
| This has nothing to do with Linux. The issue is that that while src
| has a stable versus current branch, there is no stable branch for
| ports. The result is major updates are almost always problematic.
Any data points to
,--- You/vehemens (Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:36:04 -0800) *
| On Sunday 01 February 2009 11:22:52 am Alex Goncharov wrote:
|
| Any data points to support the last statement?
|
| How about the last two xorg updates. Gnome has similar problems.
Last two -- when (or what numbers)?
| | You
As a general note, this is the second time in a row that an X.org
upgrade broke X for a significant number of people. IMO, this
suggests that our approach to X.org upgrades needs significant changes
(see below). X11 is a critical component for anyone who is using
FreeBSD as a desktop and
On Fri Jan 30 11:53:16 PST 2009, Peter Jeremy wrote:
As a general note, this is the second time in a row that an X.org
upgrade broke X for a significant number of people. IMO, this
suggests that our approach to X.org upgrades needs significant changes
(see below). X11 is a critical component for
,--- You/vehemens (Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:53:58 -0800) *
| In general when upgrading, you take your chances. If a port upgrade
| fails, you should fall back to what worked.
So, a *fundamental* (practically an OS component) port is brought in
-- and it disables my system. What is my way of
On Saturday 31 January 2009 01:25:21 pm Alex Goncharov wrote:
,--- You/vehemens (Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:53:58 -0800) *
| In general when upgrading, you take your chances. If a port upgrade
| fails, you should fall back to what worked.
So, a *fundamental* (practically an OS component) port
Alex:
I can understand your frustration. The Xorg update, although it helps
a lot of people, is inevitably going to cause problems for some, because
it is run by so many people in different ways with a wide variety of
hardware. It's comparable in some ways to updating the OS, and despite
the
,--- You/vehemens (Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:54:42 -0800) *
| On Saturday 31 January 2009 01:25:21 pm Alex Goncharov wrote:
| So, a *fundamental* (practically an OS component) port is brought in
| -- and it disables my system. What is my way of action? Right --
| install the old packages, taken
,--- You/bf2006a (Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:43:59 -0800 (PST)) *
| Alex:
|
| I can understand your frustration. The Xorg update, although it
| helps a lot of people, is inevitably going to cause problems for
| some, because it is run by so many people in different ways with a
| wide variety of
Alex Goncharov wrote:
,--- You/Peter (Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:53:11 +1100) *
| X11 is a critical component for anyone who is using FreeBSD as a
| desktop and having upgrades fail or come with significant POLA
| violations and regressions for significant numbers of people is not
| acceptable.
Alex Goncharov wrote:
That's useful -- I didn't know about ports-mgmt/portdowngrade. Thank
you!
It's not that useful because very few ports mirrors allow anon-cvs
access, mostly just cvsup/csup. The last time I had to use it, I
found a mirror in Germany that worked, after a long search.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 10:25:09PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
In contrast, 1.5.3 upgraded and I observed two issues, one was the
Xorg sleeping in ttyin, that was promptly fixed.
What was this one about? I just had the weird experience (after
upgrading with much manual intervention) of X
I have to agree with you that this latest update was most problematic for me. I
keep my system very up-to-date, usually every 3-5 days. FreeBSD 7.1 RELENG
(Which is stable at the moment) on Toshiba X200-AX1
Two major problems both noted in UPDATING but still cause of a huge number of
problems
As a general note, this is the second time in a row that an X.org
upgrade broke X for a significant number of people. IMO, this
suggests that our approach to X.org upgrades needs significant changes
(see below). X11 is a critical component for anyone who is using
FreeBSD as a desktop and having
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 06:53:11AM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
As a general note, this is the second time in a row that an X.org
upgrade broke X for a significant number of people. IMO, this
suggests that our approach to X.org upgrades needs significant changes
(see below). X11 is a critical
,--- You/Peter (Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:53:11 +1100) *
| X11 is a critical component for anyone who is using FreeBSD as a
| desktop and having upgrades fail or come with significant POLA
| violations and regressions for significant numbers of people is not
| acceptable.
Fully agree with this.
|
Alex Goncharov wrote:
I hate to say this, but the new X (as exists in the current FreeBSD
ports) sucks and gets in the way of work big time.
There are definitely issues with xorg-7.4 at the moment.
The root issue seems to be that USB mice simply don't work for me,
and running Xorg
,--- You/Bruce (Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:06:45 +) *
| One theory is that somehow the mouse driver ioctls which are passed
| to ums, are somehow hosing USB, although why that would be, I don't
| understand. ums currently doesn't have driver instrumentation in that path.
|
| I pulled a
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 07:46 -0500, Alex Goncharov wrote:
,--- You/Bruce (Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:06:45 +) *
| One theory is that somehow the mouse driver ioctls which are passed
| to ums, are somehow hosing USB, although why that would be, I don't
| understand. ums currently doesn't
,--- You/Robert (Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:40:11 -0500) *
| I've had patches available for probably a couple of months now posted to
| freebsd-...@. For the few people who tested it, I had no real issues
| reported. We were stalled for a long time, While X kept moving, so the
| amount of change
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 08:58 -0500, Alex Goncharov wrote:
,--- You/Robert (Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:40:11 -0500) *
| I've had patches available for probably a couple of months now posted to
| freebsd-...@. For the few people who tested it, I had no real issues
| reported. We were stalled for a
Alex Goncharov wrote:
,--- You/Bruce (Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:06:45 +) *
| One theory is that somehow the mouse driver ioctls which are passed
| to ums, are somehow hosing USB, although why that would be, I don't
| understand. ums currently doesn't have driver instrumentation in that
,--- You/Robert (Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:12:47 -0500) *
| Problem is, it isn't just the Xserver... All of the pieces are
| intertwined and so in many cases to update Xserver you also need to
| update some/several libraries as well as all of your drivers. Xorg is
| about 60 or 70 ports now.
That
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 09:25 -0500, Alex Goncharov wrote:
,--- You/Robert (Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:12:47 -0500) *
| Problem is, it isn't just the Xserver... All of the pieces are
| intertwined and so in many cases to update Xserver you also need to
| update some/several libraries as well as all
Dan Allen wrote:
Thanks to Robert for pointing out a few things to me.
I have run
portupgrade -rf libxcb
I normally run portupgrade -WrRpPa
This is what I ran and it totally hosed my system.
I had to revert back to an earlier version to be able to
bring X back up.
This should have
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 16:45 -0500, Stephen Clark wrote:
Dan Allen wrote:
Thanks to Robert for pointing out a few things to me.
I have run
portupgrade -rf libxcb
I normally run portupgrade -WrRpPa
This is what I ran and it totally hosed my system.
I had to revert back to an
Thanks to Robert for pointing out a few things to me.
I have run
portupgrade -rf libxcb
and it rebuilt quite a few pieces that had not been rebuilt in the
standard portupgrade that gave me X.org 7.4 in the first place.
After rebuilding firefox and a bunch of smaller libraries, my
,--- You/Dan (Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:39:10 -0700) *
| While this enabled the mouse (without HAL), it did nothing good about:
|
| a. The bogus keyboard scans.
You are quoting me and I need to clarify...
| Everyone is talking about an xorg.conf
| The new X.org 7.4 upgrade hit me too: no
On my -current I get some weirdness with latest xorg, latest hal...
1) Xorg -configure fails
X.Org X Server 1.5.3
Release Date: 5 November 2008
X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0
Build Operating System: FreeBSD 8.0-CURRENT i386
Current Operating System: FreeBSD genipizza.casadep.home 8.0-CURRENT
,--- You/Diego (Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:50:11 +0100) *
| On my -current I get some weirdness with latest xorg, latest hal...
Take a look at the issue
ports/131016: xorg-7.4 renders system unusable!
in the bug system re: other people's unfortunate experiences with this
upgrade. My personal
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Alex Goncharov
alex-goncha...@comcast.net wrote:
,--- You/Diego (Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:50:11 +0100) *
| On my -current I get some weirdness with latest xorg, latest hal...
Take a look at the issue
ports/131016: xorg-7.4 renders system unusable!
in the
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 03:03:40 pm Alex Goncharov wrote:
,--- You/Diego (Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:50:11 +0100) *
| On my -current I get some weirdness with latest xorg, latest hal...
Take a look at the issue
ports/131016: xorg-7.4 renders system unusable!
in the bug system re:
,--- You/Kent (Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:38:47 -0800) *
| I had 3 system with this problem and they started to work after I added
| (Options AutoAddDevices off) to the ServerLayout section.
I did have the `Options AutoAddDevices false' piece, and the two
other required disregard HAL options in the
41 matches
Mail list logo
