From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Jan 2 10:55: 0 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [216.33.66.196]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12E7437B41C; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 10:54:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id 887B181D03; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 12:54:41 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 12:54:41 -0600 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Terry Lambert Cc: Stephen McKay , Jordan Hubbard , Murray Stokely , John Baldwin , arch@FreeBSD.ORG, re@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: xfree4 by default? Message-ID: <20020102125441.Y16101@elvis.mu.org> References: <20011231183928.F37696@bsd.havk.org> <78699.1009878927@winston.freebsd.org> <200201021425.g02EPks11288@dungeon.home> <3C334C5A.A5E56055@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3C334C5A.A5E56055@mindspring.com>; from tlambert2@mindspring.com on Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 10:07:22AM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Terry Lambert [020102 12:07] wrote: > Stephen McKay wrote: > > >It wouldn't be that hard in sysinstall either, depending on how > > >the X bits are packaged. FWIW, I also think that XFree86 4.x's time > > >has come. > > > > None of my current video cards work properly with 3.3.6, so I'm all for > > adding 4.1.0 immediately, rather than post release. Any chance? > > Yeah. > > Why isn't "X" a _package_ instead of a weird-ass tarball? I don't know! Maybe it's how the Xfree people distribute it? -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' Tax deductable donations for FreeBSD: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message