RE: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Warren Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 10:30 PM To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed In all the time of asking for various help and providing details, the fact of if the machine has been upgraded has never been relevant and was still not relevant in the end. Why are you so defensive? It is likely that if we had known that this wasn't a fresh install, the initial line of questioning would have been based on the assumption that there were leftovers in the system that wern't expected to be there. As it turned out there was - the imake left over from the 5.x probably, although since you haven't posted a confirmation that Dejan's suggestion actually worked (until now) there was not enough info to speculate as to why your system got broken to start with. Didn't it occur to you when you read Daniel's question to you that you hadn't supplied the list with enough information to help you? Why would he have asked what version of FreeBSD were you running in the first place? I am merely pointing out that vague questions are generally what sparks discussion, and therefore those who dislike discussion would be well advised to avoid posting vague questions. The fact was the discussion was about why i was bothering with XFree86 on a 5.x when xorg is def which had completly no bearing on the inital problem. Well, you say you had the imake used with xorg installed, and you seem to be saying that correcting this fixed the problem. While you may not have ever before had an imake installed on this system, it seems quite likely that your imake came in when you did your upgrade to 5.x But i ended up getting the help i needed. You were lucky, the usual results of being vague with questions are not generally productive. It is also polite to thank the poster to the list who actually made the suggestion that helped you to fix the problem, as well as to let him and the list know that it did in fact, work. It is a sad day when someone as rude as I am find myself lecturing on politeness! :-) Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
You were lucky, the usual results of being vague with questions are not generally productive. It is also polite to thank the poster to the list who actually made the suggestion that helped you to fix the problem, as well as to let him and the list know that it did in fact, work. It is a sad day when someone as rude as I am find myself lecturing on politeness! :-) Ted Yes i do agree that the intial email lacked enough information on what version of BSD i was using and did send that info through once reminded of that fact. But i honestly didnt see the point in everyone hashing out why i was using XFree86 over Xorg amongst other things, which ended up in a heated long discussion. I personally cant see the big deal about what X server someone uses, that was and is my only point. But i do thank the person who did provide me with the solution of changing imake. Being as i did that then re-did a CVSUP i couldnt say for sure if that was the main reason why it was fixed, but none the less it is fixed now. -- 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]
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 pgpXZy9vlaQcB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
Warren wrote: 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 After this command that seems to skip ports that fail, what version of imake-4 and XFree86-4-libraries do you have installed? Dejan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
After this command that seems to skip ports that fail, what version of imake-4 and XFree86-4-libraries do you have installed? Dejan What ever is the latest version as i did a CVSUP and portupgrade as of 24 June 2005 and the above port is the only one that failed. -- 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]
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
On Saturday 25 of June 2005 15:10, Warren wrote: After this command that seems to skip ports that fail, what version of imake-4 and XFree86-4-libraries do you have installed? Dejan What ever is the latest version as i did a CVSUP and portupgrade as of 24 June 2005 and the above port is the only one that failed. You can check with pkg_info(1). You should have imake-4.5.0. The file /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/config/X11.tmpl should include the following: #ifndef DRMIncludesDir #define DRMIncludesDir $(XF86OSSRC)/shared/drm/kernel #endif If it does not, you should (re)install devel/imake-4 port. Dejan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions 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-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions 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-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions 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-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions 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-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
You can check with pkg_info(1). You should have imake-4.5.0. The file /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/config/X11.tmpl should include the following: #ifndef DRMIncludesDir #define DRMIncludesDir $(XF86OSSRC)/shared/drm/kernel #endif If it does not, you should (re)install devel/imake-4 port. I actually have imake-6.8.1 -- 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]
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-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
On Sunday 26 of June 2005 00:44, Warren wrote: You can check with pkg_info(1). You should have imake-4.5.0. The file /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/config/X11.tmpl should include the following: #ifndef DRMIncludesDir #define DRMIncludesDir $(XF86OSSRC)/shared/drm/kernel #endif If it does not, you should (re)install devel/imake-4 port. I actually have imake-6.8.1 This is imake from Xorg distribution. You need to replace it with the one from XFree86. The following command should do the trick: portupgrade -o devel/imake-4 imake-6\* Dejan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: -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 XFree86 should build and work fine on FreeBSD 5.4. If it doesn't I would like to know and will try to fix the problem. 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? I have already answered to that on questions@ and to OP. If you encountered the same error, this would be caused by either out of date imake or imake from Xorg distribution. You can solve the problem by installing up to date devel/imake-4 port. 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. There are commits still being made on RELENG_4 branch and people are still using it. Ports tree is so far still supported on RELENG_4 branch. Security team intends to support this branch at least until January 31, 2007. 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. The reason for Xorg existence are not licensing issues. 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. The move to Xorg as default X11 implementation in ports was not made on licensing base. 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? We also support two kerberos implementations, three different ghostcripts a number of desktop environments, just as example. I really don't see how this could be bad or how it complicates things. I could see where asking end user which X11 or which ghostscript he wants to use would be making things complicated, but there is one default to get out of the box. The alternatives are there for people who want to use those. Dejan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
I use XFree86 as it was what i was using when i upgraded the machine from 4.x to use 5.x and i personally prefer it, nothing more nothing less and untill such time as Xfree86 is no longer maintained willi entertain the idea of moving to Xorg. Now may i please be removed from your CC's .. i only wished to know what was the problem and possibly how to correct it, nothing more nothing less. I dont wish to be apart of this needless discussion. -- 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]
RE: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
-Original Message- From: Dejan Lesjak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 4:19 PM To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Mark Linimon; Warren Subject: RE: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: -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 XFree86 should build and work fine on FreeBSD 5.4. If it doesn't I would like to know and will try to fix the problem. 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/xfre e86/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/xfre e86/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? I have already answered to that on questions@ and to OP. If you encountered the same error, this would be caused by either out of date imake or imake from Xorg distribution. You can solve the problem by installing up to date devel/imake-4 port. 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. There are commits still being made on RELENG_4 branch and people are still using it. Ports tree is so far still supported on RELENG_4 branch. Security team intends to support this branch at least until January 31, 2007. Yes, that is why I said isn't really active Active means a release is planned and the branch has a future. That branch is in maintainence mode at this time. 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. The reason for Xorg existence are not licensing issues. 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. The move to Xorg as default X11 implementation in ports was not made on licensing base. Well then I feel better that the Project made the right choice in going with xorg. I still deplore the splitting of X development between the 2 groups, however. 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? We also support two kerberos implementations, three different ghostcripts a number of desktop environments, just as example. Those are simpler, have less effect on everything else if they go away. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
On Sunday 26 of June 2005 01:18, Dejan Lesjak wrote: On Sunday 26 of June 2005 00:44, Warren wrote: You can check with pkg_info(1). You should have imake-4.5.0. The file /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/config/X11.tmpl should include the following: #ifndef DRMIncludesDir #define DRMIncludesDir $(XF86OSSRC)/shared/drm/kernel #endif If it does not, you should (re)install devel/imake-4 port. I actually have imake-6.8.1 This is imake from Xorg distribution. You need to replace it with the one from XFree86. The following command should do the trick: portupgrade -o devel/imake-4 imake-6\* That should be portupgrade -fo devel/imake-4 imake-6\* of course. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
If you had mentioned in the beginning that this system was upgraded from 4 you would have never spawned this discussion. Since you don't like the discussion perhaps that is a lesson to you to make more complete questions, no? Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Warren Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 4:26 PM To: Dejan Lesjak Cc: Mark Linimon; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Ted Mittelstaedt Subject: Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed I use XFree86 as it was what i was using when i upgraded the machine from 4.x to use 5.x and i personally prefer it, nothing more nothing less and untill such time as Xfree86 is no longer maintained willi entertain the idea of moving to Xorg. Now may i please be removed from your CC's .. i only wished to know what was the problem and possibly how to correct it, nothing more nothing less. I dont wish to be apart of this needless discussion. -- 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-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 9:33 am, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: If you had mentioned in the beginning that this system was upgraded from 4 you would have never spawned this discussion. Since you don't like the discussion perhaps that is a lesson to you to make more complete questions, no? Ted If thats what you want to believe, who am i to argue :) -- 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]
RE: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Warren Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 4:35 PM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: Dejan Lesjak; Ted Mittelstaedt; Mark Linimon Subject: Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 9:33 am, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: If you had mentioned in the beginning that this system was upgraded from 4 you would have never spawned this discussion. Since you don't like the discussion perhaps that is a lesson to you to make more complete questions, no? Ted If thats what you want to believe, who am i to argue :) It was just a question, not a statement. No I guess, then. Figures. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 9:33 am, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: If you had mentioned in the beginning that this system was upgraded from 4 you would have never spawned this discussion. Since you don't like the discussion perhaps that is a lesson to you to make more complete questions, no? Ted If thats what you want to believe, who am i to argue :) It was just a question, not a statement. No I guess, then. Figures. Ted In all the time of asking for various help and providing details, the fact of if the machine has been upgraded has never been relevant and was still not relevant in the end. The fact was the discussion was about why i was bothering with XFree86 on a 5.x when xorg is def which had completly no bearing on the inital problem. But i ended up getting the help i needed. -- 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]
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 pgpTRuqBYM6re.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-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions 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 pgptVDyvSfQQu.pgp Description: PGP signature
