From owner-freebsd-x11@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 17 21:32:23 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E582F106566B for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:32:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhein@timing.com) Received: from Daffy.timing.com (daffy.timing.com [206.168.13.218]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D06E8FC0C for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:32:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gromit.timing.com (gromit.timing.com [206.168.13.209]) by Daffy.timing.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id nAHLC7D4022349; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:12:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from jhein@timing.com) Received: from gromit.timing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gromit.timing.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAHLBr5v070057; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:11:53 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from jhein@gromit.timing.com) Received: (from jhein@localhost) by gromit.timing.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id nAHLBrfY070055; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:11:53 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from jhein) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <19203.4505.30354.388990@gromit.timing.com> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:11:53 -0700 From: John Hein To: "Carlos A. M. dos Santos" In-Reply-To: References: <200911170210.nAH2A3B2089193@freefall.freebsd.org> <1258477653.2303.48.camel@balrog.2hip.net> X-Mailer: VM 8.0.12 under 23.1.1 (i386-pc-freebsd) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.91.2, clamav-milter version 0.91.2 on Daffy.timing.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/137373: x11/libX11: make dependance on x11/libxcb X-BeenThere: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: X11 on FreeBSD -- maintaining and support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:32:24 -0000 Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote at 18:22 -0200 on Nov 17, 2009: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Robert Noland wrote: > > There is a pretty fair risk of breaking several other ports with this. > > Other ports that also expect xcb to be present would need to be modified > > to either have xcb disabled or fail if libX11 does not have the needed > > functionality. > > That's exactly why I made it optional, default on, keeping the > default behavior. I think that what Robert may be saying is that even if it's default is 'on', people will turn it off, and we might see lots of questions about why this port or that port isn't working. Maybe you can investigate a few ports that may need the xcb-ness of libX11 and see what it takes to make them work in an xcb-free flavor of libX11 (or hint at build time that they won't work if libX11 doesn't have xcb). The alternative is to commit this change and just see what breaks. But doing a little investigation ahead of time to give us a heads up about what to expect would be useful.