From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 9 08:08:42 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1682B16A474 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 08:08:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsam@ns.kfs.ru) Received: from ns.kfs.ru (kfs.kfs.ru [62.183.117.194]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 915BF43D73 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 08:08:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bsam@ns.kfs.ru) Received: from bsam by ns.kfs.ru with local (Exim 4.54 (FreeBSD)) id 1Foc2e-000EEA-Ig; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 12:08:28 +0400 To: Alexander Leidinger References: <70960100@ho.ipt.ru> <20060608151349.tsgxoswvpcs0c408@netchild.homeip.net> <95913083@ho.ipt.ru> <20060609003133.09a2d84d@Magellan.Leidinger.net> From: Boris Samorodov Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 12:08:28 +0400 In-Reply-To: <20060609003133.09a2d84d@Magellan.Leidinger.net> (Alexander Leidinger's message of "Fri, 9 Jun 2006 00:31:33 +0200") Message-ID: <47741107@serv3.int.kfs.ru> User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: "Boris B. Samorodov" Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [patch] bsd.ports.mk: X_WINDOW_SYSTEM and linux 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: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 08:08:42 -0000 Hi! Alexander, thank you for time and convincing arguments. Now I fully agree with you. On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 00:31:33 +0200 Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Boris Samorodov (Fri, 09 Jun 2006 00:31:48 +0400): > > On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:13:49 +0200 Alexander Leidinger wrote: > > > Quoting Boris Samorodov (from Thu, 08 Jun 2006 02:47:23 +0400): > > > > to use with linux (linux-XFree86-libs). Five weeks ago netchild@ > > > > committed a new one (linux-xorg-libs). > > > > > > > > Now the question is how to configure the needed linux X libraries. My > > > > > Don't. Yes, we have OVERRIDE_LINUX_BASE_PORT. I see it as some kind of > > > help when testing updates for the linux base port. Some people may use > > > it to use a non-default linux base. Since we (emulation@) only support > > > the default linux base port, they are doing it on their own. So > > > providing such an option to let the user select what he wants is the > > > wrong goal IMO. > > > > ...my intention to introduce LINUX_X_WINDOW_SYSTEM was to help > > admins/users to switch to new linux_base and linux-x11 ports with less > > pain. You see, there is a difference between have choice and don't > > have one. Why we should give one a choice to use linux_base port and > > not to give a choice to use linux x11 port? > There are several major linux distributions, but only one major X11 > "distribution" left in linux distributions. > But there's not really a a choice of linux_base ports... we have > outdated ones, the upcomming default, and the gentoo ones. The gentoo > ones aren't really linux_base ports (providing what is necessary to > integrate linux apps into the FreeBSD environment), they are entire > distributions (use them in a jail and you have a virtual linux > system... ok, not really, the linux kernel is missing, so it's a > virtual GNU/glibc server). So I think they are different from the > linux_base ports. > The OVERRIDE switch was to let people help in the major transition from > 8 to "something". At least it was my idea behind this knob. > > Yes, we should announce that a new linux-xorg-libs is a new and > > supported port. But why we (say so, freebsd-emulation team) insist on > No, it will be the default X11 port for the new default linux base > port. But I would not suggest to use it instead of the XFree86 one with > the current default linux base port. > > using xorg libs? I know many admins/users using xfree86 libs on > > FreeBSD so far. Shouldn't we give them a chance to use those libraries > > with linuxolator? > FC4 is using xorg, and everything is linked against xorg. The X11 libs > should be ABI compatible, but I don't want to bet on it. Since the new > default will be FC4, you get what FC4 uses: xorg. > > > Each linux distribution comes with his own default X11 implementation. > > > They make sure everything works with it. We should stay with the X11 > > > system the default linux distribution uses. We're happy to have some > > > resources ATM to get the default linux base into shape (thanks for all > > > you work here Boris!), but we should not put ourself into a place > > > where we seem to promise more than what we are able to handle. > > > > Agreed. But the default and supported port is a one thing. And > > insisting (while not giving any alternate) is another thing. > > We may (or should!) declare the default and supported one at our > > docs. But should be restrict X-libs to the default one? BTW, why > IMO yes. You get what the linux base provides. FC4 will be the new > default soon, and FC4 decided to support xorg instead of XFree86. They > are obliged to provide security updates for their xorg package as long > as FC4 is supported. From a security point of view I'm not willing to > accept a binary package with an unknown track record for security > fixes. We had a bad state with the default linux_base port long enough, > we don't need to invite such a state again. > > should we tolerate non-default linux_base ports? ;-) > When FC4 will be the default, *all* remaining linux_base ports without > a maintainer will get an expiration date (ATM I prefer 3 months grace > time, different opinions welcome). This resolves to: only the gentoo > ones and the default one will stay. Regarding my opinion of the gentoo > ones see above (I would like to see them renamed and installed into a > different location; and I already told the maintainer that I see them > not as a linux_base but as something different instead). > > > When we switch the default linux base port and the default linux x11 > > > port, I intend to mark the XFree86 one as deprecated (together with > > > > Hm... Please, don't. Let the port have a ports@ maintainer, not > > freebsd-emulation@. But give one a chance to have a choice. Whether to > > use a default and supported one or not. > Everyone is free to adopt the port after I released it and marked it as > deprecated. > > > all the unmaintained or old linux base ports). > > > > > > Said that, I'm not insisting on my bsd.ports.mk patches. I'm trying to > > find out the truth... ;-) > Here you see my point of view. If you can nullify some of my important > comments, I don't object to such a switch. But until then you have to > find another committer (it would be more easy for you in case portmgr > hands out a commit bit for you, as requested by me) who supports this > and is willing to beg portmgr to test it. > Bye, > Alexander. WBR -- Boris B. Samorodov, Research Engineer InPharmTech Co, http://www.ipt.ru Telephone & Internet Service Provider