From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 26 12:05:43 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1251D16A422; Sun, 26 Jun 2005 12:05:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lofi@freebsd.org) Received: from mail-in-04.arcor-online.net (mail-in-04.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.44]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 432F543D49; Sun, 26 Jun 2005 12:05:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lofi@freebsd.org) Received: from mail-in-07-z2.arcor-online.net (mail-in-07-z2.arcor-online.net [151.189.8.19]) by mail-in-04.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EA9C21055; Sun, 26 Jun 2005 14:05:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-in-04.arcor-online.net (mail-in-04.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.44]) by mail-in-07-z2.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C15F131400; Sun, 26 Jun 2005 14:05:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lofi.dyndns.org (dsl-213-023-192-094.arcor-ip.net [213.23.192.94]) by mail-in-04.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB4E121055; Sun, 26 Jun 2005 14:05:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.8.4] (lofi@kiste.my.domain [192.168.8.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by lofi.dyndns.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j5QC5ZUo000733 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 26 Jun 2005 14:05:36 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from lofi@freebsd.org) From: Michael Nottebrock To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 14:05:23 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1 References: In-Reply-To: X-Face: =Ym$`&q\+S2X$4`X%x%6"L4>Y,$]<":'L%c9"#7#`2tb&E&wsN31on!N\)3BD[g<=?utf-8?q?=2EjnfV=5B=0A=093=23?=>XchLK,o; >bD>c:]^; :>0>vyZ.X[,63GW`&M>}nYnr]-Fp``,[[@lJ!QL|sfW!s)=?utf-8?q?A2!*=0A=09vNkB/=7CL-?=>&QdSbQg X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Cc: Mark Linimon , Warren , Ted Mittelstaedt , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 12:05:43 -0000 --nextPart1458870.dueZByeuai Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Sunday, 26. June 2005 01:18, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > If there was significant "product differentiation" between xfree86 and > xorg, then there would be a reason to keep both. Right now there is > not and with the difficulty in X development, there won't soon be. There's already quite a delta on the video driver level. > Here's the litmus test - would you pull a popular port if it breaks on 4 > but not on 5? 'nuff said. What does that prove? It wouldn't get pulled if it would break the other wa= y=20 around either, but be marked BROKEN for the appropriate branch. > The FreeBSD project agrees with me, if they did not then they would > have rewritten the installer to make it optional which one to pick. If it were possible to run software from binary packages built against Xorg= on=20 XFree86 (or vice-versa) hassle-free, that would be an option. =2D-=20 ,_, | Michael Nottebrock | lofi@freebsd.org (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org --nextPart1458870.dueZByeuai Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBCvpoNXhc68WspdLARAiirAJ0XNtuxI9bAmtsIOb7+osh2lrYhpQCgoJzr ZUoptrXypYsPt3P6H+eV80U= =gUqB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1458870.dueZByeuai--