Re: SL's X11 (X11-users Digest, Vol 6, Issue 177)
Re: SL's X11 (X11-users Digest, Vol 6, Issue 177)
- Subject: Re: SL's X11 (X11-users Digest, Vol 6, Issue 177)
- From: Jeremy Huddleston <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 10:22:07 -0700
They haven't, yet. It would be a pity to do this based on one
library's compatibility version.
It has nothing to do with "one library's compatability version" ... if
anything, you should rebuild everything using the improved compiler
and for x86_64.
One of the issues is the binary distribution. Many of the
maintainers, including me, have invested a lot of time and effort
getting ready for a smooth transition to 10.6 (and to 64-bit), and
have been using the assumption that X11 2.4.0 or greater would be
available to 10.6 users.
Well, then you made a false assumption which would've been avoided if
one of you had actually asked me or installed one of the developer
seeds of SL. I'm sorry for this problem, but you should not have
assumed that entirely. You've seen how long it takes to get changes
from the macosforge.org release into a Leopard SU, and you are
familiar with development cycles, so you should have assumed that the
*very* recent release of 2.4.0 (which was after the final GM seed of
SL was seeded to developers) would probably be too late to make it
into SL.
Fink links to the XQuartz Update Page, and although it doesn't
explicitly say to update to 2.4.0, it does suggest staying up to
date, which means that many users will be keeping up to date.
Great. Then on Leopard, they have the latest version (2.4.0), and on
SL they have the latest version (2.3.4).
The users should recompile everything anyways to make use of the new
compiler and build x86_64 binaries.
Also, distributors of pre-compiled software have linked to the
latest X11 libraries, and have instructions to install X11 from the
Xquartz update page. All of these would also have to be recompiled
to link to the earlier library.
As mentioned countless times in public places, if you want
portability, you need to use the SDK and not the latest version
released. I'm sorry you made that mistake.
I recommend that you use 2.1.6 (the version included with 10.5.8) for
building binary packages.
Further, this version clobber that comes with installing in /usr/X11
is one of the big problems that we are looking to fix with the X11
releases for SL which will install in a separate prefix and allow side-
by-side use with the system X11.
Fink used to give the users the option of installing its own X11,
but I thought they got talked out of it by Apple for 10.5.
Uhm... that's plain not true.
They did in fact have an X11 install option prior to 10.5. It is
still documented in various places on the web pages, eg:
http://pdb.finkproject.org/pdb/package.php/xorg
I am not saying that they did not have an X11 install option prior to
10.5. I'm saying that they were not "talked out of it by Apple for
10.5" ... I never talked anyone out of that. In fact, I was pushing
in the exact opposite direction for MacPorts (as was Ben Byer), so
there's no way that either of us tried to talk fink out of that.
Further, that xorg fink package is based on ancient code... that's
probably why they abandoned it (the Apple X11 was newer). fink should
update their xorg package to modular rather than monolithic. I've put
in a ton of work pushing patches back upstream, so it's almost
entirely ./configure && make && make install at this point...
Being able to have the same set of libraries used as
dependencies ... ie, gtk linking against the same version of libX11
regardless of which version the OS is... that seems better to me.
Then why release a new library in X11.app 2.4.0 and then regress for
10.6?
2.4.0 is not in 10.6. It's a regression for users who had 2.4.0 on
10.5 and linked against it, yes... and I'm sorry for the issues that
this has caused... but it's not a 10.5 to 10.6 regression, and it's
not an X11 version regression either... it's just that X11 in SL is
2.3.4 and not 2.4.0.
in fact, the whole reason of divorcing from this "clobber /usr/X11"
distribution is to avoid issues just like this.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
X11-users mailing list (email@hidden)
This email sent to email@hidden
References: | |
| >Re: SL's X11 (X11-users Digest, Vol 6, Issue 177) (From: "William G. Scott" <email@hidden>) |
| >Re: SL's X11 (X11-users Digest, Vol 6, Issue 177) (From: Jeremy Huddleston <email@hidden>) |
| >Re: SL's X11 (X11-users Digest, Vol 6, Issue 177) (From: "William G. Scott" <email@hidden>) |
| >Re: SL's X11 (X11-users Digest, Vol 6, Issue 177) (From: Jeremy Huddleston <email@hidden>) |
| >Re: SL's X11 (X11-users Digest, Vol 6, Issue 177) (From: "William G. Scott" <email@hidden>) |