Building X11

CK un_x at
Wed Sep 14 03:29:47 UTC 2016

deciding to install X11 from scratch to avoid the massive
amounts of "junk" that is required to be downloaded and
installed with a "ports" installation, work was done
to compile X11 from sources ... and a view is offered
with a suggestion that people get a little more critical
on what is being "pushed" on everyone by inserting
"self-serving octopus tentacles" and agendas by means of
integrating "glue" into much of standard Unix software;
and for no other reason than self-serving agendas;
ie, without merit insofar as "satisfying users".


/join #xcb

> i would like to know if it is possible to allow "xcb" to build
in Xorg without Python.  in my view, whoever made the decision to
force X11 users to download/install/maintain Python really has no
business developing X11.

> nothing against Python in particular ...  it really doesn't
matter what "massive non-Unix" language ...  the point is that a
massive non-Unix installation of someone's "favorite programming
language" is being pushed on people that for whatever reasons
(storage or other resources or just "lack of clutter" or dislike
for the language, etc) may not want it, but it is being shoved
into everyone's system if they need to use X11.

> and along with that, a requirement to learn enough of the
language to maintain it and repair problems that occur with it in
it's installation in relation to X11.

> can anyone say what purpose this serves, and how it is or is not
absolutely necessary, and if this dependency can be removed?
otherwise, i am working on a distribution without xcb.

> is Python an integral part of xcb that cannot be removed for
building X11?  it seems like it is, but it would be nice to get an
answer from the developers without wasting a lot of time digging
into the xcb code.

> it appears that is the only Python file in libxcb.
for that single script, installing and maintaining dozens of MB's
of a high-level programming language is required?  is this an
accurate assessment?

> is it impossible to perform the work of using
standard Unix tools?

> can anyone answer please?

> or direct to a location that has an answer to these questions

> The core and extension protocol descriptions are in XML, with a
program written in Python creating the C bindings.  (Previous
versions used m4). [from Wikipedia]

> that's really insane.  somebody needs to fix this.  it is insane
to require X11 users to install and maintain a massive high-level
language like Python for such a stupid minor function in compiling
a "standard" X11 library.  whoever is behind that kind of
decision shouldn't be developing for X11 - they're too
narrow-minded, they have too little concern for various types of
users that need to make use of X11, and the motives appear to be
founded in personal gain and interest and not those of providing a
standard X11 system to the millions of users that have been
depending upon it for decades, and have been depending on somewhat
intelligent development, ie, development that does not create
stupid senseless burdens on the users of X11.

> does anyone have an intelligent argument *for* the necessity of
this nonsense, ie, demanding X11 users download/install/maintain a
massive high-level language like Python to generate some C-bindings
in an X11 library?  if not, i will leave, but i want to provide an
opportunity for someone to justify such a decision, before the
issue continues elsewhere.

> and the same kind of nonsense can be found in configure scripts
that detect Gawk or some other GNU program, and then refuse to
continue compilation without Glib, and then if you install that,
then they want Iconv, and then if you install that, ./configure
wants Libintl, and so on, like endless fucking GNU octopus
tentacles that try to take over a users entire system.

> if a user wants to compile and install X11, they should be able
to do it with standard base Unix system tools, and nothing more,
and if you can't handle it, don't develop for X11, go write Python
scripts somewhere else.

not a single reply in over an hour.

after spending a couple of dozen hours playing with the X11
sources, some things became apparent:  1st, it seems that a lot
of work is done by corporate interests (Redhat/Oracle/etc).
non-corporate interests just don't seem to have the time or
resources to participate in creating quality distributions;
and this is not good.  life is getting "tight" in many ways
for many people.

GNU stuff (detected by ./configure, eg, gawk) will demand a lot
of useless GNU crap also be installed.  GNU is like an octopus with
a million arms to drag you down to GNU-Hell.  why is GNU a Hell?
Besides the fact that Gnu is Not Un*x - and is actually a
perverter and destroyer of UN*X, GNU is greedy - it says "you can
use this only if I can own+control whatever you do with it ..."
it's communist, stingy, ...ish.  it's not "freedom" or
"independence" or "good-will toward others".  it's dictating to
others, enforcing comformity, ie, monoculturism - with a "I want
to control it ALL" foundational ethic.  therefore, it's
destructive to humanity, vibrant color, and true diversity (which
is an important foundation in technological development).  it's
certainly not the BSD way or FreeBSD historically.  unfortunately,
freedom means the freedom to be evil, but worse than that is an
imperialist totalitarian agenda that states "I AM GOOD!", ie, I
(NOT AS I DO!) That is the reign of pure evil and wickedness.
GNU/Linux is the "bad boy" in the govt/corp brainwashing of having
"free will/choice".  it's the "non-conformist's" choice in the
paradigm of pure unadulterated all-pervasive conformity, despite
the fact that it destroys sensible standards which are
essential to real freedom and independence.

finding X11 demanded pkg-config (it really doesn't, but the
configure scripts fake this dependence: echo>/bin/pkg-config
works fine), installing it from the publically available
sources found it then demanded glib -> which demanded ->iconv
which demanded -> libintl -> etc.  and building glib one finds
that it depends on glib to build - a stupid recursive GNUism,
and there's something not right about all this - it's not
software freedom - it's a software prison, and BSD's shouldn't
be going along with it.

not being expert at organizing or using Git/Sourceforge, etc,
there ought to be some effort made to stop this, and reduce
essential Unix software like X11 to "classic" make/make-install
functionality, without requiring BSD users to turn into
GNU/Linux users that require 64MB for a kernel they can't
compile.  i'm working on this personally, but it seems
like at least for X11, libxcb will have to be removed - the
"--disable-xcb" switch was taken out of the configure scripts
a few years ago - and not that xcb is bad - but for those that
enjoy minimalist type systems or prefer tight controls and
management of all the permissions on a system, this type of
software-globbing is just outrageous - an entire high-level
language like Python is required FOR ONE STUPID X11 SCRIPT!
and it's totally unnecessary.  and not a single developer
on the xcb IRC channel would justify it in any way at all.

it's just a question on the future of BSDs.  are they going
to conform to Apple/Linux/Microsoft - or will any effort be made
to remain true to Unix standards/sanity/roots?  is the pleasure
of having tons of software and popularity more important than
sensibility and standards?  because they are opposite directions
in all areas of life.  the Herd is never sensible, and always
places perceived pleasure before quality standards.

lead, follow, or get out of the way! :)

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list