Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Linimon [mailto:linimon at lonesome.com]
>Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 3:51 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: Mark Linimon; Daniel O'Connor; freebsd-stable at freebsd.org; Warren;
>freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
>Subject: Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
>
>
>On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 02:45:45PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> I'm sorry to step on the toes of the port maintainer but instead
>> of complaining about it you need to respond to the realitites.
>
>In general I would rather do that than argue, yes.
>
>> make: don't know how to make /drm.h. Stop
>> *** Error code 2
>> 
>> If you really believe that XFree86 is being actively maintained, then
>> answer the original poster, quit bitching about what I'm saying.
>
>Actively maintained means having updates tested on the build cluster
>and committed when the majority of ports upgrade successfully.  It does
>not mean every port necessarily is going to work in every single
>configuration, since there are a large number of interdependent parts.
>
>Have you filed a PR about this?  query-pr shows no match for 'drm'.
>

It's not a problem I have since I use xorg on 5.X

As a matter of fact I just installed xfree86 a week ago, from scratch,
on a new 4.11 system, from a ports tree that I cvsupped, with no
problems.

So I don't have an answer for the OP as to why his xfree86 setup
doesen't build.  But I have no problems in building xorg on FreeBSD 5,
the OP indicated he was using FreeBSD 5, and FreeBSD 5 comes with
a prebuilt binary of xorg.  So a very logical question is
to ask the OP why he is going at cross-currents and using xfree86
on 5.  If his answer had been something that indicated that xfree86
was not a dependency for what he was doing, then once again, the
quickest fix would be to simply tell him to stop using
xfree86 and build xorg.

I don't have any particular bias against xfree86.  I do not agree with
fracturing the X development effort between 2 virtually identical
projects - but as I didn't have any vote in that happening, I am
forced to deal with the aftermath.  And so I'm going to do that from
a self-interest point of view.  And the best solution for me and
for just about everyone in Open Source is to choose between xfree86 or
xorg, and for just about everyone to choose the same choice, and let
the other project die off from neglect.  The FreeBSD Project chose xorg,
so I will chose xorg.  Maybe they chose wrong and xorg will die and
xfree86 will continue - if that happens I'll deal with it then.

If there was significant "product differentiation" between xfree86 and
xorg, then there would be a reason to keep both.  Right now there is
not and with the difficulty in X development, there won't soon be. 

>fwiw, the most recent update to x11/XFree86-4/Makefile was on
>2005/06/15 02:39:58 to update to 4.5.0 and shows that 8 different
>PRs were closed by the commit.
>
>> The 4.X source branch isn't really active anymore.
>
>This is news to me.  AFAIK we are still requesting all our port
>maintainers to keep things working on 4.X whenever possible.
>

OK, then schedule another RELEASE.

If you knew anything about the history of FreeBSD you would know that
4.X should have ended years ago.  I know Rod Grimes personally and
he was one of the founders, and he said that what happened with 4 was
never the way it was intended.

Here's the litmus test - would you pull a popular port if it breaks on 4
but not on 5?  'nuff said.

>
>> the users of open source, which is you and I, are not served by
>> splitting development between 2 forks of X Windows.
>
>You are entitled to your opinion.  Others disagree, and quite strongly
>so.  

The FreeBSD project agrees with me, if they did not then they would
have rewritten the installer to make it optional which one to pick.

>
>Finally, the initial question would have probably gotten a better
>answer if posted to the freebsd-x11 mailing list, where the maintainers
>of the X servers tend to hang out, and any further discussion of these
>issues ought to migrate there as well.
>

I agree with that.

Ted