Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 05:12:25 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Chuck Robey <chuckr@telenix.org> Subject: Re: x11 status Message-ID: <20090226181225.GA3540@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20090225065308.GO19161@hoeg.nl> References: <49A4B9ED.5040705@telenix.org> <20090225065308.GO19161@hoeg.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On 2009-Feb-25 07:53:08 +0100, Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> wrote: >The XFree86 project has been dying ever since almost all the active >development moved to the Xorg-project. Xorg has many new features that >XFree86 doesn't have, like hardware compositing and improved device >detection. And along the way, they've dropped things like integration testing, avoiding regressions and avoiding POLA violations. >> latest cvs image from Xfree86, and it built FAR easier that xorg, far >> faster, far simpler to configure ... > >Why should it matter how easy it is to build a piece of software? You >can just run `make -C /usr/ports/x11/xorg install clean' or `pkg_add -r >xorg'. Note that Chuck also mentioned faster (the conversion from imake to configure added something like 30% to the time to build X.org for absolutely no benefit - some pieces of X.org now take 4 times as long to configure as to build) and easier to configure. Whilst the ease of building a port doesn't really affect the end user, it does affect the port maintainer - a port that needs lots of tender care and feeding will lead to more rapid maintainer burnout. -- Peter Jeremy [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkmm24kACgkQ/opHv/APuIfgtQCggnm9MsYPOB/qxVAyL0D18CRu 4PsAoKROsm6tYoreYVnTB99fB9dtqMSg =ecl0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090226181225.GA3540>