Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 16:31:20 -0700 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: "Dejan Lesjak" <dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> Cc: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Warren <shinjii@virusinfo.rdksupportinc.com> Subject: RE: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed Message-ID: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNMENGFBAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <200506260119.18133.dejan.lesjak@ijs.si>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>-----Original Message----- >From: Dejan Lesjak [mailto:dejan.lesjak@ijs.si] >Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 4:19 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Mark Linimon; Warren >Subject: RE: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed > > >Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >>>[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Mark Linimon >>>Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 11:25 AM >>>To: Ted Mittelstaedt >>>Cc: Daniel O'Connor; freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Warren; >>>freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >>>Subject: Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed >>> >>> >>>On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 09:14:26AM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >>>> Why are you building xfree86? FreeBSD 5.4 uses Xorg. It's >>>> just about the same code just different licensing. I don't >think the >>>> FreeBSD core is bothering to keep the xfree86 port working on >>>FreeBSD 5.X >>>> just FreeBSD 4.11 > >XFree86 should build and work fine on FreeBSD 5.4. If it >doesn't I would like >to know and will try to fix the problem. > >>>I'm sorry, but this is wrong on almost all counts. The default X >>>server that is installed by the base for 5.4 is indeed xorg, but >>>both XFree and xorg are being actively maintained. >> >> >> I'm sorry to step on the toes of the port maintainer but instead >> of complaining about it you need to respond to the realitites. And >> the reality is this: >> >> ln >> -s >> >/usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfre >e86/os-su >> pport/linux/drm/xf86drmRandom.c >> xf86drmRandom.c >> rm -f xf86drmSL.c >> ln >> -s >> >/usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfre >e86/os-su >> pport/linux/drm/xf86drmSL.c >> xf86drmSL.c >> make: don't know how to make /drm.h. Stop >> *** Error code 2 >> >> Stop in /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/lib/GL. >> *** Error code 1 >> >> Stop in /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri. >> >> If you really believe that XFree86 is being actively maintained, then >> answer the original poster, quit bitching about what I'm saying. What >> do you think maintainence is? > >I have already answered to that on questions@ and to OP. If you >encountered >the same error, this would be caused by either out of date >imake or imake >from Xorg distribution. You can solve the problem by installing >up to date >devel/imake-4 port. > >>>A great deal of >>>work goes into keeping both X servers working on the active source >>>branches. >>> >> >> The 4.X source branch isn't really active anymore. > >There are commits still being made on RELENG_4 branch and >people are still >using it. Ports tree is so far still supported on RELENG_4 >branch. Security >team intends to support this branch at least until January 31, 2007. > Yes, that is why I said "isn't really active" Active means a release is planned and the branch has a future. That branch is in maintainence mode at this time. >>>As for the licensing meta-fiasco, see the FAQ or use Google to find >>>out more; this has been hashed and re-hashed and re-re-hashed here, >>>and in other venues, many times. >>> >> >> If the licensng was a non-issue then xorg wouldn't exist. > >The reason for Xorg existence are not licensing issues. > >> Personally I deplore the move to xorg based on the simple requirement >> of xfree86 for recognition in their new license - this was the >> same bunch of bullcrap that the GPL bigots were using to throw rocks >> at the BSD license years ago. > >The move to Xorg as default X11 implementation in ports was not made on >licensing base. > Well then I feel better that the Project made the right choice in going with xorg. I still deplore the splitting of X development between the 2 groups, however. >> We just had a big thread on making FreeBSD easier to use for the >> average person - and now your claiming that it's a -good- thing >> to have two completely different X Windows distributions?!?! How >> exactly does this HELP with the complexity issue - unless the goal is >> to make FreeBSD even more complicated? > >We also support two kerberos implementations, three different >ghostcripts a >number of desktop environments, just as example. Those are simpler, have less effect on everything else if they go away. Ted
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNMENGFBAA.tedm>