Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed

Mark Linimon linimon at lonesome.com
Sat Jun 25 22:51:06 GMT 2005

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.


More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list