Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 13:35:54 +0300 From: yurtesen@ispro.net To: Michael Nottebrock <lofi@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 100s of xorg ports, will there be an xorg-base port? Message-ID: <20070708133554.ii8mrtand1c4kkg0@87.251.0.19> In-Reply-To: <200707080220.46541.lofi@freebsd.org> References: <468EA80C.70208@ispro.net> <20070706231851.GS38748@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <468F3062.2000001@ispro.net> <200707080220.46541.lofi@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Michael Nottebrock <lofi@freebsd.org>: > On Saturday, 7. July 2007, Evren Yurtesen wrote: > >> > Please explain what the problem is. If you choose to install the xorg >> > metaport then the ports system will automatically fetch and install the >> > dependencies. Exactly what aren't "most people" happy about? >> >> I guess it is mostly psychological but people do not tend to like a lot >> of ports installed with each app as usually this means more difficulties >> when upgrading etc. Maybe this is superficial but at the least it is >> discouraging people from using X with FreeBSD or upgrading to 7.2. >> People are not happy because of the simple reason that one has to >> install 300-400 more ports (especially without a possibilit to select >> what to not to install) to get X running nowadays. > > I believe this is pretty much a non-issue. X.org hasn't really grown in > complexity (at least as far as the end-user is concerned) or size just > because the monolithic ports are no more. I am rather certain future X.org > updates won't be nearly as involved, if at all, as the monolithic 6.9 -> > modular 7.2 transition. > > Also I suspect you underestimate the problems a stripped down installation= of > X.org can bring on machines running the actual server, which seems to the > kind of installations you have in mind. X.org is not very good yet at tell= ing > exactly what is missing if some particular feature/extension or driver the > user wants happens not to be installed, neither are most users familiar > enough with X to make a well-informed decision what components they really > want when faced with an options menu. > > Augmenting X.org with some sort of plug'n'play front-end for hardware > detection and automatic driver installation therefore might be a worthwhil= e > project, but it's probably outside the scope of a port Makefile. You have a point, but what I am asking is at least an options dialog. =20 As well all components can be selected by default if you are worried =20 that user cant choose right components, and you can warn the user that =20 if they deselect some then things might get broken. The user should =20 have a choice. Also, a stripped down X is possible. If lets say we install KDE and it =20 requires more components then they could be installed automatically =20 with KDE install. A good example I know is PHP port. PHP normally =20 installs a stripped down version without any extensions, however when =20 you install some port like lets say squirrelmail, then some extensions =20 are installed automatically. As well, when PHP is installed, it asks =20 if you waht the CLI or module etc. the user can make a mistake and =20 install wrong things there too. It all comes down to having a choice, from what I see in forums and =20 mailing list entries that people complain about X installing too many =20 ports. By giving them a choice of what is installed or not, even if =20 all selected by default, you can stop people from complaining. When =20 they have a choice to not to install so many ports, at least they cant =20 complain because it was their choice to install all :D Plus, the people who know what they are doing can clean up their =20 systems by not installing unnecessary ports. I know, you will say that the same stuff was installed before anyway =20 but it just looks way more when it is installing 100+ ports now. :) Thanks, Evren
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070708133554.ii8mrtand1c4kkg0>