this looks fine to me. what's with the whitespace changes?
On 15 February 2017 at 19:27, Johannes Lundberg wrote:
> This patch adds support for MacBook Pro 11,2 to asmc.
> The other day I tried patching my old
This patch adds support for MacBook Pro 11,2 to asmc.
The other day I tried patching my old
submission and discovered it did not apply at all anymore. I uploaded an
updated patch that should apply cleanly to HEAD.
Someone got time to
I can add my 2 cents to Oleksander`s
1. If xf86-input-keyboard is not used as primary keyboard driver, patch
 should be applied to xorg-server to prevent ttyv8<->xorg frame
2. It`s also worth trying one of PR/196678 patches to xorg devd
Andriy Gapon (a...@freebsd.org) wrote:
> at the moment the documentation for evdev on FreeBSD is very scarce, even if
> talk about wiki pages, informal howto-s or blog posts.
> So, I would like to ask your help for a very basic evdev test setup.
> All input devices I
On 2017-Feb-14 10:32:32 -0800, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> After some discussion on svn mailing list , there is intention
>to remove SVR4 binary compatibilty layer from FreeBSD head, meaning
>that FreeBSD 12.0-RELEASE, available in couple of years would
>be shipped without it.
at the moment the documentation for evdev on FreeBSD is very scarce, even if we
talk about wiki pages, informal howto-s or blog posts.
So, I would like to ask your help for a very basic evdev test setup.
All input devices I have are standard keyboard and a mouse with some extra keys.
Well, I'd like to offer help keeping it (because on a personal
opinion, I'd like being compatible `:-D).
But the reasons are pretty reasonable and convincing :-).
I have no more objections against removing it when security risks involves.
Best wishes, MMokhi.
In message <20170215081430.gc58...@freebsd.org>, Gleb Smirnoff writes:
>Well, we all "maintain" it, meaning that we keep it compilable. However,
>I'm sure that no one checks the functionality. There are no regression
>tests, and seems to be no users.
And probably nobody ever bothered to
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:56:29AM +0330, mokhi wrote:
m> Is this removing is because no-interest on maintaining it?
m> If it helps, I am working to use the `kern_* instead sys_*` as
m> mentioned patch in that discussion suggests for svr4, if this helps.
Well, we all "maintain" it, meaning