[patch] bsd.ports.mk: X_WINDOW_SYSTEM and linux

Fri Jun 9 08:08:42 UTC 2006

Hi!

Alexander, thank you for time and convincing arguments. Now I fully
agree with you.

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 00:31:33 +0200 Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Quoting Boris Samorodov <bsam at ipt.ru> (Fri, 09 Jun 2006 00:31:48 +0400):
> > On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:13:49 +0200 Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > > Quoting Boris Samorodov <bsam at ipt.ru> (from Thu, 08 Jun 2006 02:47:23 +0400):

> > > > 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?

> There are several major linux distributions, but only one major X11
> "distribution" left in linux distributions.

> But there's not really a a choice of linux_base ports... we have
> outdated ones, the upcomming default, and the gentoo ones. The gentoo
> ones aren't really linux_base ports (providing what is necessary to
> integrate linux apps into the FreeBSD environment), they are entire
> distributions (use them in a jail and you have a virtual linux
> system... ok, not really, the linux kernel is missing, so it's a
> virtual GNU/glibc server). So I think they are different from the
> linux_base ports.

> The OVERRIDE switch was to let people help in the major transition from
> 8 to "something". At least it was my idea behind this knob.

> > 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

> No, it will be the default X11 port for the new default linux base
> port. But I would not suggest to use it instead of the XFree86 one with
> the current default linux base port.

> > 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?

> FC4 is using xorg, and everything is linked against xorg. The X11 libs
> should be ABI compatible, but I don't want to bet on it. Since the new
> default will be FC4, you get what FC4 uses: xorg.

> > > 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

> IMO yes. You get what the linux base provides. FC4 will be the new
> default soon, and FC4 decided to support xorg instead of XFree86. They
> are obliged to provide security updates for their xorg package as long
> as FC4 is supported. From a security point of view I'm not willing to
> accept a binary package with an unknown track record for security
> fixes. We had a bad state with the default linux_base port long enough,
> we don't need to invite such a state again.

> > should we tolerate non-default linux_base ports? ;-)

> When FC4 will be the default, *all* remaining linux_base ports without
> a maintainer will get an expiration date (ATM I prefer 3 months grace
> time, different opinions welcome). This resolves to: only the gentoo
> ones and the default one will stay. Regarding my opinion of the gentoo
> ones see above (I would like to see them renamed and installed into a
> different location; and I already told the maintainer that I see them
> not as a linux_base but as something different instead).

> > > 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 at . But give one a chance to have a choice. Whether to
> > use a default and supported one or not.

> Everyone is free to adopt the port after I released it and marked it as
> deprecated.

> > > 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... ;-)

> Here you see my point of view. If you can nullify some of my important
> comments, I don't object to such a switch. But until then you have to
> find another committer (it would be more easy for you in case portmgr
> hands out a commit bit for you, as requested by me) who supports this
> and is willing to beg portmgr to test it.

> Bye,
> Alexander.

WBR
-- 
Boris B. Samorodov, Research Engineer
InPharmTech Co,     http://www.ipt.ru
Telephone & Internet Service Provider