XFree86 4.3.0 in FreeBSD Ports Tree 23
Dan writes "Eric Anholt has committed the long awaited XFree86 4.3.0 to the FreeBSD ports tree. Please report any issues, bugs, etc. directly to him. The port appears to have support for popular cards such as NVidia, ATI, etc. Eric suggests that you use portupgrade to ensure you update fully from an earlier version of XFree86."
Re:agp support? (Score:2)
Re:Broken FreeBSD Alpha port !!! (Score:1)
A pleasant surprise... (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, I have to remark that the nvidia drivers for FreeBSD work surprisingly well under Xfree 4.3. So far no problems. My Geforce 4 is happily screaming away at 1600x1200. Life is good :)
Re:A pleasant surprise... (Score:2)
Is XF86-4.3.0 compatiable with NVIDIA's drivers? (Score:1)
Re:Is XF86-4.3.0 compatiable with NVIDIA's drivers (Score:2)
matrox g550 didn't work for me (Score:4, Informative)
the bsd ones (from the ports) just kept giving weird errors.
the port maintainer knows this now, but if you are running a dual-dvi system (which NEEDS the matrox HAL lib) then maybe try getting the linux
fyi.
Re:matrox g550 didn't work for me (Score:2)
Basically, what it did was download the Matrox Gxx source drivers and build them with X11. It's how I got my dual-head Matrox G400 working under FreeBSD on my other workstation.
Oh well... Guess I'd have to wait with updating X on that box.
Re:matrox g550 didn't work for me (Score:2)
but those files DIDN'T WORK! don't know why - its beyond me - but I know for a fact they didn't work and that the 'linux'
weird. but true.
also, dualhead and dualhead DVI are quite diff. I run dual dvi. for that, you need the HAL lib. for regular dual, you don't (AFAIK)
Why no DRM? (Score:2)
From the article:
graphics/drm-kmod isn't going to be updated for 4.3.0.
Anybody know why not? And why no HAL support?
Re:Why no DRM? (Score:2)
Because graphics/drm-kmod is sort of deprecated. It only exists for the 4.x tree, because the drm stuff is now in the kernel sources for the 5.x tree. I noticed that the kernel sources weren't updated either, so maybe an update just isn't needed.
Re:Why no DRM? (Score:1)
I'm not updating drm-kmod because it's annoying to have these open-source, mit-licensed kernel modules outside of the tree. It means that as the port maintainer I have to apply patches to it every time someone changes the kernel API and all the users have to manually update it. If it's in the tree, there's no synchronization problem (except in DRI CVS).