Re: Xorg from Base or pkgsrc - recommendations?

["Thomas Mueller" <mueller6725%twc.com@localhost>]

> Dear NetBSD-users,

> for many years, X11/Xorg provided the basis for graphical user 
> interfaces on Unix-like systems; so on NetBSD. It was therefore always a 
> relief for me to be able to install it ready for use as part of the base 
> system.

> In the meantime there is also X11/Xorg in pkgsrc and I wonder what 
> reasons - in particular on the amd64 platform - speak for one or the 
> other approach. I ask especially because I recently had some problems 
> with both approaches.

> The pkgsrc version led to segmentation faults on my Thinkpad X220 with 
> Intel graphics, while the version from NetBSD worked without any problems.

> On the other hand, the xentools411 from the pkgsrc could not be built 
> with the version from NetBSD due to an unfulfilled dependency on Mesa, 
> while with Xorg from pkgsrc there was no problem.

> I don't want to see this as a rating - I didn't put a lot of energy into 
> analyzing these problems and I think they can be solved or at least 
> worked around. Nevertheless, I would be interested to know which route 
> is the recommended one at the moment or where it is worth putting more 
> energy into it.

> Kind regards
> Matthias

My first thought is when updating is necessary with pkg_rolling-replace or other means, updating modular-xorg can make a big mess.

Updating Xorg as part of the base system is much easier, but then there is the disadvantage that a bug in the X source can ruin the whole NetBSD build.

from    Thierry Laronde :

> There is one very good incentive for X11 provided with the system: it 
> can use the compilation and thus the cross-compilation framework to be
> built. This is clearly a bonus when one is using architectures for which
> a cross-compilation does save a lot of time.

> This is, at least for me, one very good reason to have X11 back in the
> sources. A NetBSD system is a consistent system that, already "as is",
> can provide the means to do real work (I know that I indeed add only my
> own softwares on top of it---well: I add sendmail and procmail too, but
> they do cross-compile without ado...).

> This will not answer "the" question but the side question: why in the
> sources too.

Ability to cross-compile is another factor favoring native Xorg over modular (pkgsrc) Xorg.

It would be interesting to see what others say.

I have one installation where I have modular Xorg, some packages but nothing really big: question is how to get rid of the modular Xorg part before or after updating with native X.

I could mv /usr/pkg to /usr/pkg-old and /var/db/pkg to /var/db/pkg-old, and install some non-X packages back from /usr/pkg-old to serve as a start.

I would also have to remember to change X11_TYPE from modular to native in /etc/mk.conf .

Tom