From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 7 22:16:30 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4030716A4CE; Fri, 7 May 2004 22:16:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net (sccrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.202.55]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 906B143D48; Fri, 7 May 2004 22:16:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from anholt@freebsd.org) Received: from [192.168.0.103] (c-24-21-18-195.client.comcast.net[24.21.18.195]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with SMTP id <2004050805162601100k1ahse>; Sat, 8 May 2004 05:16:28 +0000 From: Eric Anholt To: Alexey Dokuchaev In-Reply-To: <20040508050030.GA4020@regency.nsu.ru> References: <200405072010.i47KAnoG032811@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040508050030.GA4020@regency.nsu.ru> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1083993853.919.4.camel@leguin> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 22:24:13 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: ports@freebsd.org cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/x11 Makefile ports/x11/panoramixext Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: eta@lclark.edu List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 May 2004 05:16:30 -0000 On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 22:00, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:10:49PM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote: > ... > > > New port: panoramixext 1.1 freedesktop.org: > > X PanoramiX extension headers > > > > Testing is encouraged, but please do not use these ports as dependencies until > > a plan is made for handling the transition from XFree86. > > What do you mean by "transition from XFree86" here, precisely? Is there > intention to prefer FDo's bits over XFree86, or just provide a coherent > way to choose between the two? If former, what's wrong with XFree86 so > such transition is a concern? I assume that it's not related to recent > license policy change in XFree86 camp, am I right? No, it's not the license change. It's that active development of libraries is going on at fd.o/X.Org, not XFree86, these days. We can only really have a single source for libraries because of packaging, so fd.o/x.org is the way to go I believe. As far as the server, we should be able to provide XFree86-4-Server and the X.Org server side-by-side just fine. (I wasn't around for the big fighting over the license, but I have to say I'm surprised FreeBSD is okay with the licensing terms on the server these days. Anyway, I'm not worried about it myself since I don't plan on touching the XFree86 server any more). -- Eric Anholt eta@lclark.edu http://people.freebsd.org/~anholt/ anholt@FreeBSD.org