Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 16:25:26 -0500 From: stan <stanb@awod.com> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: XFree86 4.2 Message-ID: <20020305212526.GA21001@teddy.fas.com> In-Reply-To: <20020305173147.160C65D06@ptavv.es.net> References: <20020305123218.AD7ED37B402@hub.freebsd.org> <20020305173147.160C65D06@ptavv.es.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 09:31:47AM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > From: Mike Murphree <w4lna@knology.net> > > Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 06:32:34 -0600 > > Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG > > > > On Tuesday 05 March 2002 04:03 am, Herve Quiroz wrote: > > > I have not been member of this list until recently so I have probably > > > missed some discussion on the topic. Anyway, what is going on with Xfree86 > > > v4.2 ? I once had seen XFree86 4.2 on freshports.org but then it came back > > > to 4.1 few days later... > > > > > > NetBSD has already 4.2 in -stable so why not FreeBSD ? > > > > > > > The port was at 4.2.0 shortly before the release of FreeBSD 4.5 and > > it was rolled back to 4.1.9 because of insufficient testing time before the > > release. It has never been put back... > > > > I've been running 4.2.0 since that time with zero problems. > > This is not why the 4.2 port was pulled. The main reason was that > XF86-4.2 was added to the ports just prior to the release of FreeBSD > 4.5. It was felt that it was unwise to include a new release of > XFree86 that was largely untested in a new release of FreeBSD, so the > port was pulled. > > At the same time it was decided that it was a good time to convert > XFree86 from a port to a meta-port. This has been under discussion for > some time and the 4.2 release looked like a good time to cut over. So > the 4.2 port appeared and disappeared from the tree, but is still > available and works fine. > > (If you don't know what a meta-port is, look at /usr/ports/x11/gnome/Makefile.) So what are teh _advantegse_ of a metaport? O'm dealing with on _disdvantage_ at the moment. For reasons involving my own stupidity, I find myself with a broken Gnome installlation even though the ports db thinks it' fine. But since it's a metaport, I can't just do "portupgrade -f gnome" :-( Must be a positive side to this, right? Otherwise you could just install all of it with a trivial shell loop over the various appropriate directories in the ports tree. -- "They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020305212526.GA21001>