Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:35:52 +0100 From: Andrea Campi <andrea@webcom.it> To: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> Cc: Jean-Marc Zucconi <jmz@FreeBSD.ORG>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -CURRENT and XFree86 4.0.2 problem Message-ID: <20010201133551.A1256@webcom.it> In-Reply-To: <20010201050902.L479@puck.firepipe.net>; from will@physics.purdue.edu on Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 05:09:02AM -0500 References: <20010123101200.B542@naver.co.id> <20010131115547.C2268@webcom.it> <200101311336.f0VDaTk81098@freefall.freebsd.org> <20010131152541.F2268@webcom.it> <20010201050902.L479@puck.firepipe.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 05:09:02AM -0500, Will Andrews wrote: > On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 03:25:42PM +0100, Andrea Campi wrote: > > Seriously, this is my main workstation at the office, and I need > > to get real work done. That's my number one priority. Once I am > > back at that point, with my /usr/X11R6 backed up, I can > > probably try. > > Uh, nothing prevents you from installing XFree86 4.0.1 - you can just > download the sources and make World yourself.. it's not like you really > need ports for this. Sure, you are right, but we used to have it working for 4.0.1. I simply had to go back to the upgrade message in cvs-all and do a cvs update -r ... whatever to get 4.0.1 back. My point is that it would be easy to at least tag a revision before upgrading, and it would make downgrading really easier. > > > But this is not the point, in my opinion. The point is, > > X is something we must be able to rely on. It should never > > be broken, as it takes hours to fix it. If it breaks, it > > should be fixed ASAP. If we are not able to guarantee this, > > This is a complaint that should be sent to the X people, not FreeBSD. Yes I will, but again, I was making a different point. We have two revisions of a lot of other ports. Would it be so horrible to also have XFree86-4 and XFree86-4-current or something like that. > > > If you are going to be maintainer of this code, may I > > suggest that you find a group of volunteers that together > > have 99% of the hardware (it's not hard), and let them > > test new revisions before upgrading? That would be a very > > professional way to deal with this. > > See above - nothing keeps you from installing X from sources. It's not > worth the effort to create another X port for people who have hardware > that doesn't work in the newest X. Come on - we're talking about a BUG. If people can't trust ports to be working on their very common, run of the mill, branded harware, after they spend a long time compiling something as big as X, this is going to work against FreeBSD. That's not what I'm used to seeing here. Next time, 4.0.3 could work ONLY on the maintainer hardware, and not only we could discover days or weeks later, but nobody is going to care? I don't think this is the way to go. I am simply proposing to have a broader testing base. I am volunteering to help with that. I don't see this as simply complaining. Bye, Andrea -- Tagline generated by 'gensig' mail-client-independent .signature generator. Get your copy at http://www.geeks.com/~robf/gensig/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010201133551.A1256>