Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 00:31:48 +0400 From: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [patch] bsd.ports.mk: X_WINDOW_SYSTEM and linux Message-ID: <95913083@ho.ipt.ru> In-Reply-To: <20060608151349.tsgxoswvpcs0c408@netchild.homeip.net> (Alexander Leidinger's message of "Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:13:49 %2B0200") References: <70960100@ho.ipt.ru> <20060608151349.tsgxoswvpcs0c408@netchild.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:13:49 +0200 Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> (from Thu, 08 Jun 2006 02:47:23 +0400): > > As you know, there are two X_WINDOW_SYSTEMs used with FreeBSD. They > > may be choosed (auto or by hand). So far our ports have had only one > My impression is, that after some amount of time only Xorg will "survive". I tend to agree. But... > > 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? 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 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? > 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 should we tolerate non-default linux_base ports? ;-) > 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. > 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... ;-) WBR -- Boris B. Samorodov, Research Engineer InPharmTech Co, http://www.ipt.ru Telephone & Internet Service Provider
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?95913083>