There. Hopefully the upgrade should be a breeze. As usual, report problems on freebsd-x11@.
Enjoy!
Archive for the 'X.org' Category
It’s been a while since Mr Beranger didn’t mention what he could call the FreeBSD/X.org incident. Well, we can reset the counter [link].
The poor thing mentioned (again) being driven away from the FreeBSD Project because of two developers who shall remain nameless (one of them being myself), who dared calling him an idiot. Well, I will repeat myself: clueless and whining person == idiot.
Should you not have been an idiot, you would have admitted that your understanding of how ports and packages work was wrong and you would have just said that it was simply not a good match for your needs. There’s plenty of choice, shop around, as you’re already doing.
Apart from that, there are loads of people using patched releases (via freebsd-update(1), which you also criticized, for various utterly wrong reasons, as pointed out by Colin Percival, the maintainer of the tool) with what I’ll call stable packages (which is actually latest packages built on FreeBSD-STABLE, as opposed to current packages which are built against FreeBSD-CURRENT).
I removed xfree86-4 ports yesterday. Hear hear people, if you’re still using USE_X_PREFIX or USE_XLIB, switch to USE_XORG, now.
Go there for more info: http://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/X11/Todo
Holiday season is over so I’m trying to fix as many ports as I can before portmgr cuts the final set of packages for the upcoming 7.0 and 6.3 FreeBSD releases.
I think I’ve fixed most outstanding issues with x11 ports (mga driver, xdm, ...) in the past few days. If you have a major issue like Xorg crashing at startup, I recommend reading the x11@ archives and if you still don’t find any solution, then contact the Xorg developers and/or open a bug report at bugs.freedesktop.org.
... commit in FreeBSD history. Thanks to Martin for pointing it out 
Source: FreshPorts
There you go, fresh X.org ports in your favorite ports tree, a week after it’s been released. Announce is here
At the same time, I’ve marked XFree86-4 as DEPRECATED and should be gone before 2008. Hurray \o/
Ok, I’ve finally committed the update to openbgpd, so it’s now at 4.0. I’ll probably pass the maintainership to farrokhi@ because I’m quite busy these days and I’ve been poorly maintaining it anyway. So you can start bothering him now . There’s still the openospf update pending, if you haven’t tried it, please do it now (ports/106114).
Following Kris Moore (the guy behind PC-BSD, but I’m sure you knew that already) request, I’ve also updated the X.org nv driver to 2.1.2 cause they’ve added a bunch of ids for latest NVidia GPUs.
I’m always happy to read feedback about my (limited, I admit) work on FreeBSD. This X.org work has been running for quite some time and is my most significant contribution to ports.
I don’t like being rude to people and I think most of the people I’ve been working with on FreeBSD can confirm I’m a quite cool and helpful guy, open-minded about other systems. While FreeBSD has been my OS of choice for the past 7 years, I’ve never been a zealot, I’ve often recommended some GNU/Linux distributions rather than FreeBSD, just because when you come from Windows, Ubuntu (for example) is just easier to get installed and running.
Anyway, I came across a blog entry today and while I can understand that people may be wrong about some FreeBSD stuff, I’m not expecting those people to make strong (and completely wrong) statements either. Funny thing is that the blog is called “Opensource and Strong opinions”. Let’s rename this “Utter Bullshit and Strong opinions”.
So here’s my answer:
Ok, so two things that might be of interest to you:
- FreeBSD source is branched, FreeBSD ports are not. What does that mean? Well, changes committed in the source tree go to HEAD (or CURRENT) first, except very rare occasions like security advisories or commits related to code having been removed from HEAD. With this commit may be associated a MFC (Merge From Current) delay, if the committer plans on merging the change to STABLE branches (right now, the supported ones are RELENG_6 and RELENG_5). Once that delay has passed and the committer thinks the code has received sufficient testing and/or review, the code is merged to RELENG_* branches of his choice. This doesn’t exist with ports because there are no branches (well only one, which is mainstream). Ports are not associated to any source branch, then saying that “X.org 7.2 never went into 7-CURRENT” is an absolute non-sense.
- Reading manual pages doesn’t hurt. I hate portupgrade, but right now, it’s one of those tools you simply can’t avoid using when dealing with large numbers of ports. People will argue that portmaster is getting better and better but IMHO, it’s not ready for prime time (Doug Barton is working on it on a regular basis, so this might happen soon-ish). So if you want to replace a port with another, you’ll be happy to now that there is such an option (-o). Admittedly, the description can be a bit meaningless to the neophyte, but there’s a really good EXAMPLES section at the end (and it’s worth reading, I can’t stress that enough).
I’m not going to take your points one by one and explain you what to do, because I think I wasted already a lot of time on this blog entry.
If there’s only one thing you should remember about my post, let it be that bashing is authorized, but please get a clue first. Otherwise you’re just making an ass of yourself.
Rant over.
Yeah finally. First mail I sent to lesi about xorg-modular was on the 14th of February 2006. It’s a bit more than what Kris announced but hey, now it’s committed o/.
I’m not going to make a long post, cause I’ve already made quite a lot of them. Thanks to everyone involved in testing/reviewing/patching, we wouldn’t have been able to do everything without you.
Announce is here.
Cool things I’ve read:
- teh one-hour commit!
cvs ci -F ~/cvsYPYKXc 46,55s user 46,30s system 2% cpu 1:06:44,82 total
Your mail to 'cvs-all' with the subject
cvs commit: ports MOVED UPDATING ports/Mk bsd.port.mk bsd.xorg.mk ...
Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
The reason it is being held:
Message body is too big: 707338 bytes with a limit of 400 KB
So we’ve been working on the last details before the merge.
Dejan worked on a safer/simpler upgrade path, which results you can find if you browse x11@ archives. Kris pointed out a few issues which should be resolved within a few days.
We’ve had a couple volunteers to review the xorg big diff this week-end (pav, marcus, rafan, sajd, Erandir, I hope I didn’t forget anybody) so this went pretty fast. We’ll have a quick review again after the ports tree is frozen, right before the merge (which should hopefully happen some time next week).
I’ve submitted a new tarball to Kris to have a last experimental run, just to be sure nothing was broken in the last few days.
Recent Comments