On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 03:20:49PM -0700, K. Macy wrote: > > > > I just ask. > > Or why not include drm-next to base svn repo and add some > > option to make.conf to swith drm2/dem-next ? > > Even if it's not being built on amd64 we're still responsible for > keeping it building on !amd64 so long as it's in base. This makes > changing APIs and universe runs more burdensome. The graphics > developers have given you notice that it will now be your collective > responsibility to keep it up to date. > Not quite. One graphics developer has indicated a desire to remove working code, because it interferes with the graphics developers' port on a single architecture. There is no indication by that graphics developer that drm2 will be available in ports. You can go read the original post here: https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2018-May/069401.html The last paragraph is What does the community think? Is there anyone still using the drm2 driver on 12-CURRENT? If so, what is preventing you from switching to the port? The answer to the last two questions are "yes" and "the port does not work on i386". Yes, I recognize that you're clever enough to purposefully break the API so that you can thumb your nose at those of us who have older hardware. What is wrong with using .if ${MACHINE_ARCH} != amd64 ... .endif to enable/disable drm2? -- SteveReceived on Mon May 21 2018 - 20:49:33 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:16 UTC