Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
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 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org pgpe7lpvWQDSc.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
>-Original Message- >From: Mark Linimon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 3:51 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: Mark Linimon; Daniel O'Connor; freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Warren; >freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >Subject: Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed > > >On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 02:45:45PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> 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. > >In general I would rather do that than argue, yes. > >> make: don't know how to make /drm.h. Stop >> *** Error code 2 >> >> If you really believe that XFree86 is being actively maintained, then >> answer the original poster, quit bitching about what I'm saying. > >Actively maintained means having updates tested on the build cluster >and committed when the majority of ports upgrade successfully. It does >not mean every port necessarily is going to work in every single >configuration, since there are a large number of interdependent parts. > >Have you filed a PR about this? query-pr shows no match for 'drm'. > It's not a problem I have since I use xorg on 5.X As a matter of fact I just installed xfree86 a week ago, from scratch, on a new 4.11 system, from a ports tree that I cvsupped, with no problems. So I don't have an answer for the OP as to why his xfree86 setup doesen't build. But I have no problems in building xorg on FreeBSD 5, the OP indicated he was using FreeBSD 5, and FreeBSD 5 comes with a prebuilt binary of xorg. So a very logical question is to ask the OP why he is going at cross-currents and using xfree86 on 5. If his answer had been something that indicated that xfree86 was not a dependency for what he was doing, then once again, the quickest fix would be to simply tell him to stop using xfree86 and build xorg. I don't have any particular bias against xfree86. I do not agree with fracturing the X development effort between 2 virtually identical projects - but as I didn't have any vote in that happening, I am forced to deal with the aftermath. And so I'm going to do that from a self-interest point of view. And the best solution for me and for just about everyone in Open Source is to choose between xfree86 or xorg, and for just about everyone to choose the same choice, and let the other project die off from neglect. The FreeBSD Project chose xorg, so I will chose xorg. Maybe they chose wrong and xorg will die and xfree86 will continue - if that happens I'll deal with it then. 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. >fwiw, the most recent update to x11/XFree86-4/Makefile was on >2005/06/15 02:39:58 to update to 4.5.0 and shows that 8 different >PRs were closed by the commit. > >> The 4.X source branch isn't really active anymore. > >This is news to me. AFAIK we are still requesting all our port >maintainers to keep things working on 4.X whenever possible. > OK, then schedule another RELEASE. If you knew anything about the history of FreeBSD you would know that 4.X should have ended years ago. I know Rod Grimes personally and he was one of the founders, and he said that what happened with 4 was never the way it was intended. Here's the litmus test - would you pull a popular port if it breaks on 4 but not on 5? 'nuff said. > >> the users of open source, which is you and I, are not served by >> splitting development between 2 forks of X Windows. > >You are entitled to your opinion. Others disagree, and quite strongly >so. 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. > >Finally, the initial question would have probably gotten a better >answer if posted to the freebsd-x11 mailing list, where the maintainers >of the X servers tend to hang out, and any further discussion of these >issues ought to migrate there as well. > I agree with that. Ted ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 02:45:45PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > 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. In general I would rather do that than argue, yes. > make: don't know how to make /drm.h. Stop > *** Error code 2 > > If you really believe that XFree86 is being actively maintained, then > answer the original poster, quit bitching about what I'm saying. Actively maintained means having updates tested on the build cluster and committed when the majority of ports upgrade successfully. It does not mean every port necessarily is going to work in every single configuration, since there are a large number of interdependent parts. Have you filed a PR about this? query-pr shows no match for 'drm'. fwiw, the most recent update to x11/XFree86-4/Makefile was on 2005/06/15 02:39:58 to update to 4.5.0 and shows that 8 different PRs were closed by the commit. > The 4.X source branch isn't really active anymore. This is news to me. AFAIK we are still requesting all our port maintainers to keep things working on 4.X whenever possible. > Personally I deplore the move to xorg based on the simple requirement > of xfree86 for recognition in their new license Sigh. I'm really not going to go over this for the Nth time on the mailing lists. The licensing issue was the final straw in a long-running situation that had more to do with who was able to commit what to the XFree repository. Please go do the research on the web, this has a years-long history behind it. > the users of open source, which is you and I, are not served by > splitting development between 2 forks of X Windows. You are entitled to your opinion. Others disagree, and quite strongly so. There are multiple versions of many other things in the ports tree, as well. > 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?!?! As long as we have people who are demanding that both servers work: yes. If people want something that's the easiest to use, then they should go with the current default. We already have a group of users who have no wish to change to xorg (for their own reasons), and as long as that is the case and there are maintainer cycles to do it, then we'll do both. Finally, the initial question would have probably gotten a better answer if posted to the freebsd-x11 mailing list, where the maintainers of the X servers tend to hang out, and any further discussion of these issues ought to migrate there as well. mcl ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 7:45 am, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > 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 > run. I dont want to get in the middle of a pissing contest yous seem to have going as to who is right or wrong or which X should be kept. The fact is i simply wished to know why the pkg was failing and how to correct it, nothing more nothing less. -- Yours Sincerely Shinjii http://www.shinji.nq.nu ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
>-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Linimon >Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 11:25 AM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: Daniel O'Connor; freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Warren; >freebsd-questions@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: ln -s /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-su pport/linux/drm/xf86drmRandom.c xf86drmRandom.c rm -f xf86drmSL.c ln -s /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-su pport/linux/drm/xf86drmSL.c 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 >branches. > 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 run. 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? Ted ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
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. A great deal of work goes into keeping both X servers working on the active source branches. 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. mcl ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
Warren, 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 Ted >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Warren >Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 4:17 AM >To: Daniel O'Connor >Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >Subject: Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed > > >On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 9:11 pm, Daniel O'Connor wrote: >> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:35, Warren wrote: >> > ln >> > -s >> > >/usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfre >e86/os-su >> >pp ort/linux/drm/xf86drmRandom.c xf86drmRandom.c >> > rm -f xf86drmSL.c >> > ln >> > -s >> > >/usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfre >e86/os-su >> >pp ort/linux/drm/xf86drmSL.c 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. >> >> What commanad did you run? > >portupgrade -aDk -m BATCH=yes >> What version of FreeBSD are you running? >5.4-STABLE >> When did you last cvsup your ports tree? >Just before doing PortUpgrade before sending the 1st email >> Did you read /usr/ports/UPDATING? >cant say as i did. > >-- >Yours Sincerely >Shinjii >http://www.shinji.nq.nu >___ >freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >To unsubscribe, send any mail to >"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:47, Warren wrote: > Just before doing PortUpgrade before sending the 1st email > > > Did you read /usr/ports/UPDATING? > > cant say as i did. Well that was silly.. Not that I think there is a specific entry in this case but it is a good habit to get in to.. Do you have the kernel source installed? I think you may need that to build the xfree86-dri port (I don't know why it doesn't check) -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C pgpLwwFvumZLC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 9:11 pm, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:35, Warren wrote: > > ln > > -s > > /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-su > >pp ort/linux/drm/xf86drmRandom.c xf86drmRandom.c > > rm -f xf86drmSL.c > > ln > > -s > > /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-su > >pp ort/linux/drm/xf86drmSL.c 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. > > What commanad did you run? portupgrade -aDk -m BATCH=yes > What version of FreeBSD are you running? 5.4-STABLE > When did you last cvsup your ports tree? Just before doing PortUpgrade before sending the 1st email > Did you read /usr/ports/UPDATING? cant say as i did. -- Yours Sincerely Shinjii http://www.shinji.nq.nu ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:35, Warren wrote: > ln > -s > /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-supp >ort/linux/drm/xf86drmRandom.c xf86drmRandom.c > rm -f xf86drmSL.c > ln > -s > /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-supp >ort/linux/drm/xf86drmSL.c 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. What commanad did you run? What version of FreeBSD are you running? When did you last cvsup your ports tree? Did you read /usr/ports/UPDATING? -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C pgpJv9uMlTlvs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
ln -s /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/linux/drm/xf86drmRandom.c xf86drmRandom.c rm -f xf86drmSL.c ln -s /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/linux/drm/xf86drmSL.c 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. -- Yours Sincerely Shinjii http://www.shinji.nq.nu ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
