Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:50:22 -0200
From:      "Carlos A. M. dos Santos" <unixmania@gmail.com>
To:        John Hein <jhein@symmetricom.com>
Cc:        freebsd-x11@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: ports/137373: x11/libX11: make dependance on x11/libxcb
Message-ID:  <e71790db0911171650x46c43427u84d9016fb03c2fef@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <19203.4505.30354.388990@gromit.timing.com>
References:  <200911170210.nAH2A3B2089193@freefall.freebsd.org> <1258477653.2303.48.camel@balrog.2hip.net> <e71790db0911171222s36b7e414gc0d1e9b0bd2cff64@mail.gmail.com> <19203.4505.30354.388990@gromit.timing.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 7:11 PM, John Hein <jhein@symmetricom.com> wrote:
> Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote at 18:22 -0200 on Nov 17, 2009:
> =A0> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Robert Noland <rnoland@freebsd.org>=
 wrote:
> =A0> > There is a pretty fair risk of breaking several other ports with t=
his.
> =A0> > Other ports that also expect xcb to be present would need to be mo=
dified
> =A0> > to either have xcb disabled or fail if libX11 does not have the ne=
eded
> =A0> > functionality.
> =A0>
> =A0> That's exactly why I made it optional, default on, keeping the
> =A0> default behavior.
>
> I think that what Robert may be saying is that even if it's default is
> 'on', people will turn it off, and we might see lots of questions
> about why this port or that port isn't working.

If such reasoning had any value then you should start removing all the
options on all ports right now. Run!

> Maybe you can investigate a few ports that may need the xcb-ness
> of libX11 and see what it takes to make them work in an xcb-free
> flavor of libX11 (or hint at build time that they won't work
> if libX11 doesn't have xcb).

Ports that explicitly require xcb must do it via *DEPENDS in their
respective makefiles, not by means of some under-the-hood dependency
via libX11, which is an error.

> The alternative is to commit this change and just see what breaks.

Ports that break are already broken and must be fixed. Of course we
can pretend they are not broken and keep going, but that would be a
shame.

> But doing a little investigation ahead of time to give us a heads up
> about what to expect would be useful.

Simply put, turn off the dependency of libX11 on libxcb. Then mark
libxb as FORBIDDEN and rebuild all packages that depend on libX11. Any
port whose build breaks is ... well, broken.

--=20
My preferred quotation of Robert Louis Stevenson is "You cannot
make an omelette without breaking eggs". Not because I like the
omelettes, but because I like the sound of eggs being broken.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e71790db0911171650x46c43427u84d9016fb03c2fef>