Q: state of the X (as related to fbsd).

[Mark Linimon]

On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Klaus Robert Suetterlin wrote:

> - I (Robert L. User) was unable to find anything except ``project
> split'', ``new licnese'', ``I'm pissed for some personal reason''
> fud on this topic.  Especially the freebsd faq entry is vague and
> I think misleading.

I wrote the FAQ entry and tried to make it vague so as to keep it
clear of the poltical ramifications.  Please state what you feel
is misleading about it.

AFAICT from reading the mail archives, several of the people split
from the original project because they couldn't get their changes
accepted back into the codebase.  freedesktop.org is a refactoring
and rewrite which in their own opinion will make it easier for other
people to get changes integrated more quickly.

What x.org is currently using for a codebase was taken from a branch
of the Cygnus codebase that had been kept in parallel to the XFree86
one, but with cygwin (Windows-based) changes in it that were not making
it back into the XFree86 codebase.  The new code being written by
freedesktop.org will be making its way into the x.org codebase over time.

Again, all the above this is the best that I can tell, based on what
is publically available to be read, drained of all the personality
conflicts in it, of which there are plenty.  I haven't taken the time
to read the code, so I have no direct knowledge myself.

What I tried to do in writing the FAQ is to obviate this discussion.
I am sorry that I was not able to do so successfully.

As for why the update hasn't been committed, I myself as a ports
committer would not want to do it unless I was pretty sure that it
wasn't going to break anything, because it would be me getting part
of the heat for it.  The last time I tried to do a port update on
something that dozens of othre ports depended on, that's exactly
what happened, too :-)

IMHO this is probably worth a bento run, at least on 4-exp.

mcl