Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 19:16:14 -0300 From: JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> To: Roland Smith <rsmith@xs4all.nl> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Iulian M <eti@erata.net> Subject: Re: xorg 7.2 start problem Message-ID: <200705231916.15624.joao@matik.com.br> In-Reply-To: <20070523214641.GG3705@slackbox.xs4all.nl> References: <200705211823.29943.ABabiy@shaw.ca> <200705231818.13588.joao@matik.com.br> <20070523214641.GG3705@slackbox.xs4all.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 18:46:41 Roland Smith wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 06:18:12PM -0300, JoaoBR wrote:
> > On Wednesday 23 May 2007 17:51:34 Roland Smith wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 05:29:54PM -0300, JoaoBR wrote:
> > > > I also haven't read anything and got terrible caught by this 7.2 xo=
rg
> > > > thing
> > >
> > > Says it all, really. :-)
> >
> > you're not laughing at me aren't you?
>
> A little. Ignoring /usr/{ports|src}/UPDATING usually has predictable
> results. Been there, done that. :-)
>
good to know, so at the end nobody is alone and some beast will bite me aga=
in=20
sooner or later at the same place :)
> > > > and kind of lame that portupgrade xorg does not install the modules,
> > >
> > > And how is portupgrade to know which specific drivers you need?
> >
> > good question deserve good answers: how the heck portupgrade did it
> > before?
>
> It didn't. All the drivers were in one huge package, the X server. Now
> they are in seperate ports. But the xorg or xorgs-drivers meta-ports
> should install all of them.
ok, that is what I ment, the better way would be that portupgrade installs=
=20
them all as before (when they were in the package)
I believe that is unusual that some de-installs xorg and installs the meta=
=20
port then and also I am not sure but I believe that xorg needs some drivers=
=20
in any case so it should be a necessary step or dependency here
>
> That's funny. :-) If you can't be bothered to read UPDATING, you are not
> the person to tell the maintainers that they haven't "thought it
> through".
yup, that is right but life is hard either way and it is never fair to all =
of=20
us, but then, thinking well, we might discover that the critics are ever a=
=20
valid input even if appear to one or another as offense they might not been=
=20
thought to be so
>
> Tools like portupgrade and portmaster and even the ports system are
> great but they have their limitations. I think they are kept relatively
> simple for a reason. It's much better to have a simple (maintainable)
> tool that does 95% of the jobs well than to build an extremely
> complicated ACME contraption that can cover all the corner cases and
> oddball situations. It's just not worth the effort.
I agree and totally understandable but when there is a big change involved=
=20
then it would be wise to advise more clearly what is happening from within=
=20
the upgrade process because almost nobody reads the files especially when h=
e=20
portupgraded flawless something like xorg for years, even from x86 to xorg=
=20
was a no-issue at all but there was a scary name-change.=20
other ports do it for less and a message like local base has changed you ne=
ed=20
to edit your xorg.conf or something would do good here
=2D-=20
Jo=E3o
A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura.
Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200705231916.15624.joao>