From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 26 09:53:02 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBBB3106566C for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:53:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tevans.uk@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-bw0-f164.google.com (mail-bw0-f164.google.com [209.85.218.164]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12C508FC0A for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:53:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tevans.uk@googlemail.com) Received: by bwz8 with SMTP id 8so402059bwz.43 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 01:53:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:from:to:cc :in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version :x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NCnV8QdgY6etdgcERxLO4H9ogArwlfPhMyHHdN8KWMw=; b=cWZtr7ch6esAUXaMqAK+mOIQHsL33dby39oxsPmObg/8GD5J+7AUlC+E61QeStz5Kl HPmqqQ3YjgnfRgLdw8iM+kU0k/spUBFi+rn9FO2SqDv2zeDaUuYJSwzDkfcFuDRTEX97 +U3zTh20+R+ClKrrjNHE9Beo1/rmEsIw5vKew= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date :message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=PuUmTRL65IU5+/A0u2YbWYmedr4id9DA/jE4PU+gROyLC57TDxv2GDtJjTMq5wk0GE pDSLm7BuHjKPGIN282gAGhCw6uQIqoDimQtFcXDVAJpiCvoGrZKqiePuiC7BBViRmauZ lAFkPMfSnylnxe3WcEYNGFNYqpsMtoWJioaFQ= Received: by 10.223.111.140 with SMTP id s12mr1872012fap.100.1235640363138; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 01:26:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?127.0.0.1? (87-194-39-182.bethere.co.uk [87.194.39.182]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p17sm14050759fka.30.2009.02.26.01.26.01 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 26 Feb 2009 01:26:02 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Evans To: Chuck Robey In-Reply-To: <49A5F448.7060409@telenix.org> References: <49A19C22.8000600@telenix.org> <20090223083114.F86550@ury.york.ac.uk> <49A5ABB4.2090601@telenix.org> <877i3efb1g.fsf@tabernacle.lan> <49A5F448.7060409@telenix.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:27:32 +0000 Message-Id: <1235640452.2224.65.camel@strangepork.mintel.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Julian Stecklina Subject: Re: tomcat & mouse problems X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:53:03 -0000 On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 20:45 -0500, Chuck Robey wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Julian Stecklina wrote: > > Chuck Robey writes: > > > >> Tell me, I haven't followed much of the history about Xfree86 the last few years > >> (far more concerned with serious health problems), do you know why there aren't > >> any Xfree86 ports in our ports anymore? I checked, they ARE releasing new > >> software, it works, it actually builds far, far faster/easier, howcome our ports > >> are ignoring Xfree86 in favor of Xorg? Not being fascetious here, I really > >> don't know. I'm thinking I would like to experiment to see if the Xfree86 stuff > >> works for my mouse better, but I would really rather use our ports, than getting > >> a release directly from XFree86 (I don't think they even have FreeBSD binaries > >> anymore). > > > > I guess since the license fight that caused the fork most consider > > XFree86 obsolete. It is said that most development takes place in X.org > > at the moment. > > > > Regards, > > That can't possibly be the *entire* reason for the disappearance of all of the > XFree86 ports, is it? Even the device ports (the ones with Xfree86 still in the > naming of the ports) has no Xfree86 code in it anymore. I would be astonished > if that were really true ... because I downloaded the code from there about 3 > months back, and was astonished that it built without one single glitch, needing > only one change (to make it go to the directory I wanted it to). Not one > problem in building, a classic "trivial" build, it seemed to work fine also, and > it built SO much faster and simpler. It can't just have been erased due to > someone's prejudice, could it? No, the were lots of other serious issues that annoyed 90% of the XFree86 developers, see [1], [2]. The license issue was just the straw that broke the camel's back. The ports named 'xf86-*' have nothing to do with XFree86; they are solely xorg drivers. > > Damn, that would be disappointing, if it were true. Luckily, it's builds so > trivially, it doesn['t even need a port, really. As long as it hasn't changed > greatly from 90 days ago ... > > However, the reason I got onto this was because of my mouse's jerkiness, and > since I changed the my scheduler from SCHED_ULE to SCHED_4BSD, that part's > improved also, so I have no longer got any huge reason to push this anymore. > Things are now working so well, I think I'll disappear now ... That's fair enough, but literally no-one uses XFree86 any more. At all. So if you have weird interaction with your mouse on FreeBSD in XFree86, virtually no people will have a comparable system, or knowledge of issues.. Cheers Tom [1] http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/001997.html [2] http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/002165.html