Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed

[Michael Nottebrock]

On Sunday, 26. June 2005 01:18, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> If there was significant "product differentiation" between xfree86 and
> xorg, then there would be a reason to keep both.  Right now there is
> not and with the difficulty in X development, there won't soon be.

There's already quite a delta on the video driver level.

> Here's the litmus test - would you pull a popular port if it breaks on 4
> but not on 5?  'nuff said.

What does that prove? It wouldn't get pulled if it would break the other way 
around either, but be marked BROKEN for the appropriate branch.

> The FreeBSD project agrees with me, if they did not then they would
> have rewritten the installer to make it optional which one to pick.

If it were possible to run software from binary packages built against Xorg on 
XFree86 (or vice-versa) hassle-free, that would be an option.

-- 
   ,_,   | Michael Nottebrock               | lofi at freebsd.org
 (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve     | http://www.freebsd.org
   \u/   | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20050626/ca71b4f3/attachment.bin