Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at toybox.placo.com
Sat Jun 25 21:46:07 GMT 2005

>-----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
>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:

rm -f 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?

>A great deal of
>work goes into keeping both X servers working on the active source

The 4.X source branch isn't really active anymore.

>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.

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.

But the plain fact of the matter is that the Open Source community
isn't going to tolerate what xfree86 tried doing, and the users of
open source, which is you and I, are not served by splitting development
between 2 forks of X Windows.  The amount of new video hardware that is
coming out and needs drivers is increasing, drivers are getting more and
more complex to write, and manufacturers are just as bad as they always
have been about assisting in video driver development.  The sooner that
xfree86 goes away and dies the better for the community in the long

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?


More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list