Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
dejan.lesjak at ijs.si
Sat Jun 25 23:19:24 GMT 2005
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>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
>>> 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:
> 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?
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the same error, this would be caused by either out of date imake or imake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
>>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.
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.
>>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
> 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. I really don't see how this
could be bad or how it complicates things. I could see where asking end user
which X11 or which ghostscript he wants to use would be making things
complicated, but there is one default to get out of the box. The alternatives
are there for people who want to use those.
More information about the freebsd-questions