From owner-freebsd-x11@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 2 16:39:28 2004 Return-Path: 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 77BA516A4CE for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2004 16:39:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50F0543D31 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2004 16:39:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id B029114859; Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:38:09 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:38:09 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark Linimon X-X-Sender: linimon@pancho To: Klaus Robert Suetterlin In-Reply-To: <200407020935.i629Zl0B010122@robert2.mpe-garching.mpg.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Q: state of the X (as related to fbsd). X-BeenThere: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: X11 on FreeBSD -- maintaining and support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 16:39:28 -0000 On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Klaus Robert Suetterlin wrote: > - I (Robert L. User) was unable to find anything except ``project > split'', ``new licnese'', ``I'm pissed for some personal reason'' > fud on this topic. Especially the freebsd faq entry is vague and > I think misleading. I wrote the FAQ entry and tried to make it vague so as to keep it clear of the poltical ramifications. Please state what you feel is misleading about it. AFAICT from reading the mail archives, several of the people split from the original project because they couldn't get their changes accepted back into the codebase. freedesktop.org is a refactoring and rewrite which in their own opinion will make it easier for other people to get changes integrated more quickly. What x.org is currently using for a codebase was taken from a branch of the Cygnus codebase that had been kept in parallel to the XFree86 one, but with cygwin (Windows-based) changes in it that were not making it back into the XFree86 codebase. The new code being written by freedesktop.org will be making its way into the x.org codebase over time. Again, all the above this is the best that I can tell, based on what is publically available to be read, drained of all the personality conflicts in it, of which there are plenty. I haven't taken the time to read the code, so I have no direct knowledge myself. What I tried to do in writing the FAQ is to obviate this discussion. I am sorry that I was not able to do so successfully. As for why the update hasn't been committed, I myself as a ports committer would not want to do it unless I was pretty sure that it wasn't going to break anything, because it would be me getting part of the heat for it. The last time I tried to do a port update on something that dozens of othre ports depended on, that's exactly what happened, too :-) IMHO this is probably worth a bento run, at least on 4-exp. mcl