Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2025 18:27:02 +0900 From: Tomoaki AOKI <junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp> To: dev-commits-ports-main@freebsd.org Cc: makc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: git: 290368c91a6a - main - Mk/Uses: Add support for xlibre ports Message-ID: <20251213182702.67216b3cdd68beaf65d34d8f@dec.sakura.ne.jp>
index | next in thread | raw e-mail
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 01:26:50 +0000 Jose Alonso Cardenas Marquez wrote: >> URL: https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/ports/commit/?id=290368c91a6a98c10b32c821bf430493aabafb79 >> >> commit 290368c91a6a98c10b32c821bf430493aabafb79 >> Author: b-aaz <b-aazbsd@proton.me> >> AuthorDate: 2025-12-12 00:26:44 +0000 >> Commit: Jose Alonso Cardenas Marquez <acm@FreeBSD.org> >> CommitDate: 2025-12-12 01:26:24 +0000 >> >> Mk/Uses: Add support for xlibre ports >> >> Reviewed by: dtxdf acm >> Tested by: dtxdf acm >> Obtained from: https://github.com/b-aaz/xlibre-ports > > I don't agree with this implementation for XLibre support in the ports. > Creating flavors for each port is unmaintainable in the long run. I'd prefer > XLibre to be implemented as alternative to XOrg, and DEFAULT_VERSIONS for users > to choose between XOrg or XLibre with caution that XLibre may not be supported > by the maintainers/upstream. > > Max I have old PoC patch provided at forums.freebsd.org and rejected by the devs. I've uploaded slightly fixed (line numbers only) one here. https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=291594#c8 Maybe more to do and need brush ups by more skilled guys, but I think it would be sufficient to start discussion with it. How do you think? Old story, but when ports were transitioning from XFree86 to Xorg, implementation was different, but at the moment there were no Uses framework and DEFAULT_VERSIONS framework, IIRC. I think it would be done using DEFAULT_VERSIONS way if the frameworks were already there. -- Tomoaki AOKI <junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp>home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20251213182702.67216b3cdd68beaf65d34d8f>