From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 20 19:27:09 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5D7A16A46E for ; Sun, 20 May 2007 19:27:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D223313C487 for ; Sun, 20 May 2007 19:27:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D58671A4D84; Sun, 20 May 2007 12:28:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EE09251417; Sun, 20 May 2007 15:27:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 15:27:08 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway To: Gerald Pfeifer Message-ID: <20070520192708.GA42397@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20070520183403.GD41378@xor.obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Kris Kennaway , Florent Thoumie Subject: Re: X.org update broke emulators/wine with old version of X X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 19:27:10 -0000 On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 09:23:43PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Sun, 20 May 2007, Florent Thoumie wrote: > >> Can someone more familiar with this lend a helping hand, please? I > >> assume we do want to support users still running older versions of X, > >> don't we? > > Not really. This is why XFree86-4 will go away in a few months. > > > > In that case, it's not about the version of X. The breakage is caused > > by the PREFIX merge. > > Given that we do not have an update solution which nicely works for > some non-trivial setups and situations I'm afraid this is going to > hurt us. Can you explain to which situations you refer? > I'll keep testing and reporting bugs and see where this is heading. > > On Sun, 20 May 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > Per my email to ports the other week, XFree86-4 requires a maintainer > > interested in keeping support alive. In particular since we now have > > no supported build architectures that are using XFree86-4 by default, > > it will be (and has been) entirely untested with the post-X.org > > changes and will quickly rot. > > Please note that my report was for a system running X.org 6.9, not > XFree86. OK, well it's also true that X.org 6.9 is unsupported as of yesterday since it is no longer present in ports. Kris