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

Alexander Leidinger Alexander at Leidinger.net
Thu Jun 8 22:31:18 UTC 2006

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outdated ones, the upcomming default, and the gentoo ones.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

> > 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.


Selling GoodYear Eagle F1 235/40ZR18, 2x 4mm + 2x 5mm, ~150 EUR
you have to pick it up between Germany/Saarland and Luxembourg/Capellen
http://www.Leidinger.net    Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org       netchild @ FreeBSD.org  : PGP ID = 72077137

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list