From owner-freebsd-x11@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri May 21 13:56:25 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-x11@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C71C16A4D0
	for <freebsd-x11@freebsd.org>; Fri, 21 May 2004 13:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web13425.mail.yahoo.com (web13425.mail.yahoo.com
	[216.136.175.156])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D6B4943D45
	for <freebsd-x11@freebsd.org>; Fri, 21 May 2004 13:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from giffunip@yahoo.com)
Message-ID: <20040521205624.75477.qmail@web13425.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [63.171.232.246] by web13425.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP;
	Fri, 21 May 2004 13:56:24 PDT
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 13:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffunip@yahoo.com>
To: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>,
	freebsd-x11@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <200405211925.07300.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
cc: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffunip@yahoo.com>
cc: x11@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: XFree86 4.4 port ??
X-BeenThere: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: X11 on FreeBSD -- maintaining and support <freebsd-x11.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-x11>,
	<mailto:freebsd-x11-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-x11>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-x11@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-x11-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-x11>,
	<mailto:freebsd-x11-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 20:56:25 -0000


--- Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> wrote:
...
> >
> > Hi, thanks for raising this discussion, From my testing, I think there
> > are no technical reasons, that it can not be committed within 24 hours.
> 
> I do think that having one X11 server(+libraries) in ports instead of two 
> (which on top of all else share lots of code and will make it supereasy for 
> users to get messy, mixed installations) is a good thing - and that one 
> package should be X.org - for technical reasons.
> 

>From what I've seen X.org is not ready yet, and historically FreeBSD has used
XFree86 as the default Xserver. XFree86 4.4 has been tested already by NetBSD
and several Linux distributions.

The update to XFree86 seems rather painless, changing to X.org will break many
ports, in particular those that don't use correctly $(X11BASE).* 

For now, I think it would be better to keep with XFree86 until we figure out
the issues related with having several X servers on the tree.

cheers,

    Pedro.

* Feel free to "fix" cad/Varkon, for example ;-).


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Domains – Claim yours for only $14.70/year
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer