xorg ports roadmap?
vehemens at verizon.net
Sat Nov 28 22:43:10 UTC 2009
On Saturday 28 November 2009 13:59:25 Robert Noland wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 13:26 -0800, vehemens wrote:
> > On Saturday 28 November 2009 10:02:04 Robert Noland wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 16:01 -0800, vehemens wrote:
> > > > On Friday 27 November 2009 12:53:35 Peter Jeremy wrote:
> > > > > On 2009-Nov-26 14:55:40 -0800, vehemens <vehemens at verizon.net>
> > > > > >If your having so many problems with these updates, why not just
> > > > > > split ports into current and stable branches?
> > > > >
> > > > > This isn't as easy as it sounds because there are interactions
> > > > > between so many different pieces. Back when X.org/XFree86 was a
> > > > > small number of ports (basically server, libraries and base
> > > > > clients), it wouldn't have been too hard. X.org now comprises
> > > > > something like 250 pieces with not-very-well documented
> > > > > interactions.
> > > > >
> > > > > It might help if X.org could be cleanly split into client ports and
> > > > > server ports but even that's not possible because they both depend
> > > > > on a number of X-related libraries.
> > > >
> > > > The suggestion was to have the entire ports tree as both a current
> > > > and stable branch, then using the same (similar?) rules as used for
> > > > the source branches.
> > > >
> > > > A ports freeze would mean that changes to the stable branch would be
> > > > limited, but work could still go on in the current branch.
> > > >
> > > > The MFC process could be semi-automated.
> > >
> > > This is hard enough to manage in src for one -CURRENT and 2/3 stable
> > > branches... Ports would be insanity and would in no way help to address
> > > the current issues or reduce the amount of work needed to get things
> > > done.
> > You stated in a several earlier emails that you are having problems such
> > as: a lengthy TODO list, complaints with ports breakage, coordination of
> > multiple efforts to name a few.
> > If you have a better suggestion, then please make it as we would all like
> > to hear it.
> Attempting to maintain 2 branches, close to doubles the amount of work
> needed to get things done. Not only for me, but also for portmgr@ if it
> existed in any sort of official capacity. Having a repo setup which
> would more readily allow others to work on major updates could help,
> though I don't get a lot of offers in this regard other than people
> willing to test. The current difficulty with updating is due to Intel
> and nouveau dropping support for kernel configurations without GEM/TTM.
> GEM/TTM are non-trivial to port into the kernel, although I do have WIP
> on both, there is no ETA.
Could you publish the WIP?
More information about the freebsd-x11