From owner-freebsd-ports Tue May 16 17:24:45 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from picnic.mat.net (picnic.mat.net [206.246.122.133]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04B7837B6E7; Tue, 16 May 2000 17:24:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from chuckr@picnic.mat.net) Received: from localhost (chuckr@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by picnic.mat.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA70717; Tue, 16 May 2000 20:24:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from chuckr@picnic.mat.net) Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 20:24:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Chuck Robey To: "David O'Brien" Cc: FreeBSD Ports Subject: Re: X11 issues (XFree86-libs port uploaded) In-Reply-To: <20000516153314.D79475@dragon.nuxi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 16 May 2000, David O'Brien wrote: > On Sun, May 14, 2000 at 11:05:29PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: > > I've spent some time thinking about it, trying to see why breaking it up > > into smaller chunks might be a good thing. About the only arguments I can > > see are negative ones, reasons why I'd much rather have more confidence > > that most people were required by the port to install ALL of > > XFree86. Could you talk a bit about why you think breaking the port up > > could be regarded as a good thing? > > 1. 4.0-R shipped with FreeBSD 3.x binaries that require compat3x support > to run. This is because XFree86 Inc. will only provide bits for > released products. This causes us problems in .0 releases. > 2. It should be pkg_* controlable. We have this spiffy packaging system, > and yet one of the biggest beheemiphs that could really be better > controlled with it, isn't. > 3. XFree86 Inc. will not provide us with FreeBSD/Alpha bits. > > Need I go on? Oh, I don't say you're wrong, but I don't understand why it's necessary to break it into smaller packages to get there. Regarding your wish that we use packages; I agree; I offered Jordan to build a port that packages it, so that we could have a package. He turned me down, saying that what he wanted was an absolute replica of what the XFree86 organization produces. I didn't think it was a good idea, but my way of arguing was just to not do one like that. It would have been IMO a lot of effort producing the wrong thing. I like the idea of a i386 package and a alpha package, I just don't see why that mandates the thing has to be in little pieces. I got XFree86 to build on the alpha myself, back when I suggested it to Jordan. Of course, we have a different version now ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include C & Java programming, FreeBSD, chuckr@picnic.mat.net | electronics, communications, and signal processing. New Year's Resolution: I will not sphroxify gullible people into looking up fictitious words in the dictionary. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message