Re: [RFC] Deprecation and removal of the drm2 driver

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 23:50 Steve Kargl <sgk_at_troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
wrote:

> 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?



The answer to the first question is that the consensus seem to be that
moving to a port is best for the _majority_.

Let me ask you, what’s wrong with this one-liner after base install
pkg install drm2
?


>
> --
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-x11_at_freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-x11
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-x11-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"
>