Create a metaport for the lkpi-based DRM ports. Rename existing ports to correspond to Linux versioning.
Unit Tests Skipped
I'm a little hesitant to enable devel for 12, perhaps we should do that for 13?
I would change the IGNORES, especially for <12.0 i386 to say something like it's not needed, but this is just cosmetics.
Thank you for doing this!
I'd lose the OPSYS check here and have the check from below moved to the top and make this rather long ifs the 'else' part of it.
Why drm-next here? I thought the messaging was drm-stable-kmod everywhere. It's the module I just installed for the nuc running 12.0ALPHA7. It's 1200084.
and why drm-devel-kmod here?
I'd be inclined to have a .else IGNORE=Go away here :)
I'd move this to the top...
FreeBSD 11.1 will be EOL tomorrow (2018-10-01), perhaps we want to raise the minimum version to 11.2? On the other hand, people are probably still using 11.1
This looks a bit too much like a shopping list to me, what is the advantage of using this port instead of drm-*-kmod directly?
Despite my numerous nit-picks, I love this port. It's a little light on the 'why' and a few comments will fix that.
This needs some why:
Normally I wouldn't bother, but there's much confusion here and a little extra documentation wouldn't be a burden. And if people have drm-stable installed now and go to install this, they will understand why drm-next gets installed instead...
I'd make this 1300000 instead.
Thanks for reviewing comments, will work on new revision.
No, that's not the message - as you can see from the config here. The metaport is trying to embody our recommendations to avoid needing to support all possible enumerations (and also clear up the messaging that clearly wasn't ideal). If you want to run an old DRM and it supports your HW and FreeBSD version you can obviously still do that but realistically the work on the actual DRM bits and KPI parts is happening in the later versions so having everybody on "stable" (yeah, we also plan to change these names eventually) is unrealistic, especially if breaking changes get introduced into CURRENT.
It's not the message articulated to me before I added the drm abandonware messages is my point. My bigger point is that the message needs clarity as this port is at odds with what I thought the canonical message was. It's fine if I'm confused and we need a different message than I understood: I just want to make sure that the message is crystal clear, well documented and generally the consensus view so everybody can articulate it and we can enshrine it in docs for as long as it's relevant.