Subject: Re: XFree 4.x
To: Frederick Bruckman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Richard Rauch <email@example.com>
Date: 08/17/2000 10:24:46
> > Bringing NetBSD up to XFree86 4.x, I think, might best be done by putting
> > it in a package for now. This way, it would be ``officially available''
> Before that, it might be a good idea to "packagize" NetBSD's X.
I don't entirely see why 4.x can't be ``packagized'' first, and then only
packagize 3.3.6 later, if there's a need. Mind, I'm spectacularly good at
missing the obvious. (^& That's not to say that I can't see any value to
having them both as packages.
Could a packaged 3.3.6 (or whatever) XFree86 make it in time for 1.5? I
doubt it (I thought that 1.5 was already frozen as far as such features
were concerned), but would be happy to be wrong. Packaging the standard X
server won't have much effect until the first (full?) release _after_ the
X server has been packaged. But, a packaged 4.x could be done (and used)
``anytime''---as soon as the package was ready.
> First question: Do we ever need to install both XFree3.3.6 and 4.x on
> the same system at the same time? If binaries built for
> NetBSD/XFree3.3.6 run against the new XFree, then I think "no", and
Do we have anyone who can authoritatively answer this question?
(Limited tests unaminously suggest that 3.3.6 binaries run under 4.0.
But, I've only tried a handful of binaries, and haven't really pushed
them. And, in any case, anecdotal evidence is hardly satisfactory.)
> Next question is how to break it down. I would be inclined to break
> out the shared libs from the xbase sets, and go with the same old
> names for the remaining sets (xbase, xcomp, xcontrib, xfont, xserver).
I have no strong feelings on this, since I don't know how NetBSD's XFree86
distribution differed from XFree86's own distribution in the past. I _do_
note that 4.0 has Xdoc, Xhtml, Xjdoc, Xman, and Xps relating to
documentation. Perhaps an xdocs set would be worth considering?
> Maybe we should have an "xlocal", too? I'm also not sure about the
> non-shared libs in xcomp--we don't have anything like that in pkgsrc.
a) What would go in xlocal?
b) Why should our package system care if a library isn't shared?
(Consider me clueless on this count, if it's fairly obvious. (^&)
"I probably don't know what I'm talking about." --firstname.lastname@example.org