Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dejan Lesjak [mailto:dejan.lesjak at ijs.si]
>Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 4:19 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org; Mark Linimon; Warren
>Subject: RE: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
>
>
>Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
>>>[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Mark Linimon
>>>Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 11:25 AM
>>>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>>>Cc: 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 09:14:26AM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>>>   Why are you building xfree86?  FreeBSD 5.4 uses Xorg.  It's
>>>> just about the same code just different licensing.  I don't
>think the
>>>> FreeBSD core is bothering to keep the xfree86 port working on
>>>FreeBSD 5.X
>>>> just FreeBSD 4.11
>
>XFree86 should build and work fine on FreeBSD 5.4. If it
>doesn't I would like
>to know and will try to fix the problem.
>
>>>I'm sorry, but this is wrong on almost all counts.  The default X
>>>server that is installed by the base for 5.4 is indeed xorg, but
>>>both XFree and xorg are being actively maintained.
>>
>>
>> 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.  And
>> the reality is this:
>>
>> ln
>> -s
>>
>/usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfre
>e86/os-su
>> pport/linux/drm/xf86drmRandom.c
>> xf86drmRandom.c
>> rm -f xf86drmSL.c
>> ln
>> -s
>>
>/usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfre
>e86/os-su
>> pport/linux/drm/xf86drmSL.c
>> xf86drmSL.c
>> make: don't know how to make /drm.h. Stop
>> *** Error code 2
>>
>> Stop in /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/lib/GL.
>> *** Error code 1
>>
>> Stop in /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri.
>>
>> If you really believe that XFree86 is being actively maintained, then
>> answer the original poster, quit bitching about what I'm saying.  What
>> do you think maintainence is?
>
>I have already answered to that on questions@ and to OP. If you
>encountered
>the same error, this would be caused by either out of date
>imake or imake
>from Xorg distribution. You can solve the problem by installing
>up to date
>devel/imake-4 port.
>
>>>A great deal of
>>>work goes into keeping both X servers working on the active source
>>>branches.
>>>
>>
>> The 4.X source branch isn't really active anymore.
>
>There are commits still being made on RELENG_4 branch and
>people are still
>using it. Ports tree is so far still supported on RELENG_4
>branch. Security
>team intends to support this branch at least until January 31, 2007.
>

Yes, that is why I said "isn't really active"

Active means a release is planned and the branch has a future. That
branch
is in maintainence mode at this time.

>>>As for the licensing meta-fiasco, see the FAQ or use Google to find
>>>out more; this has been hashed and re-hashed and re-re-hashed here,
>>>and in other venues, many times.
>>>
>>
>> If the licensng was a non-issue then xorg wouldn't exist.
>
>The reason for Xorg existence are not licensing issues.
>
>> Personally I deplore the move to xorg based on the simple requirement
>> of xfree86 for recognition in their new license - this was the
>> same bunch of bullcrap that the GPL bigots were using to throw rocks
>> at the BSD license years ago.
>
>The move to Xorg as default X11 implementation in ports was not made on
>licensing base.
>

Well then I feel better that the Project made the right choice in going
with xorg.  I still deplore the splitting of X development between
the 2 groups, however.

>> We just had a big thread on making FreeBSD easier to use for the
>> average person - and now your claiming that it's a -good- thing
>> to have two completely different X Windows distributions?!?!  How
>> exactly does this HELP with the complexity issue - unless the goal is
>> to make FreeBSD even more complicated?
>
>We also support two kerberos implementations, three different
>ghostcripts a
>number of desktop environments, just as example.

Those are simpler, have less effect on everything else if they go away.

Ted