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

Boris Samorodov bsam at ipt.ru
Thu Jun 8 22:13:21 UTC 2006

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):

> > As you know, there are two X_WINDOW_SYSTEMs used with FreeBSD. They
> > may be choosed (auto or by hand). So far our ports have had only one

> My impression is, that after some amount of time only Xorg will "survive".

I tend to agree. But...

> > 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?

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
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?

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

> 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.

> 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... ;-)

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

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list