Re: NVidia ports overhaul

On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 06:56:10PM +0900, Tomoaki AOKI wrote:
> ...
> As you may noticed, many of the conditionals are defining
> start or end only. Conditionals defining both start and
> end would be limited. So what I fear for now is that
> the splits could cause additional complexities on maintainance.

The incentive to maintain somewhat lengthy (and thus version-accurate
and well-documented) `post-patch' target solely within the master port,
keeping the slaves thin, is to 1) not to lose focus onto which patches
are required across all branches, and 2) allow for ``make DISTVERSION=xxx.yy.zz
-DNO_CHECKSUM'' in the master port, without the need to descend to a
specific slave.  When I was actively maintaining nVidia ports this was
super-helpful.

> And although still buildable, 304 is reported NOT working for years
> as of upgrades of x11-servers/xorg-server (changes in protocols to
> communicate with drivers).
> 
>   https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/locking-nvidia-driver-against-upgrades.101642/#post-743954

Didn't XLibre solve this? https://github.com/orgs/X11Libre/discussions/432

./danfe