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: "William G. Scott" <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 11:13:48 -0700
Hi Jeremy:
Thanks, again, for the reply. I want to emphasize that I am extremely
grateful that you provided X11.app updates, including 2.4.0, to the
community prior to official release. Really my only disappointment is
that I can't install the very same 2.4.0 into 10.6, but instead now
have a day of down time to recompile about 8 GB of software (assuming
it will recompile). I also have a lot of people in the user community
coming to me for advice and to complain of breakage, and I am unable
to give it, or to help. It's just a bit frustrating when (in my
particular case) the difference was only one library's compatibility
version.
On Aug 29, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
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"
My meaning was the differences between what came with SL and 2.4.0 are
fairly minimal. In the case that created my problem, it was only that
once library.
... if anything, you should rebuild everything using the improved
compiler and for x86_64.
I'm doing so right now, but basically this entails compiling about 230
dependencies, including gfortran (which takes forever), and assuming
all those dependencies still build, just for that one program that I
kludge-fixed with one library replacement.
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 very sorry, but it never even occurred to me to ask. I'm not a
developer, I have no budget for a developer seed, I have no clue about
software release time frames or policies, but am just an ordinary
academic user who tries to help others in my field out in my "spare"
time.
I'm sorry for this problem, but you should not have assumed that
entirely.
I certainly realize that now.
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,
Actually, I simply haven't a clue, I don't know what a development
cycle is, and I suspect most ordinary end-users and most non-core fink
maintainers are in the same boat.
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).
I guess the one thing I still just don't understand is why 10.6 users
aren't permitted to install X11 2.4.0 in the same way that 10.5 users
are. My false assumption was that no such limitation would exist, and
as far as I am aware, there was no warning or heads up, so it wasn't
exactly an insane assumption.
Like most X11 users, I've come to rely upon your generosity to have a
fully-functioning X11. What came with 10.5.0 on the install disk was
almost unusable, and the last year or two's worth of Xquartz updates
are the only thing that kept me from having to install linux to get my
work done.
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.
OK, is the reason for not allowing users to install X11 2.4.0 because
2.3.4 is supposed to be the unaltered system X11? If so, I apologize
for not understanding this, but I can't find mention of this
anywhere. A word of warning might be good to have on the website.
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.
Maybe I should have said "convinced." I'm not a member of fink's core
team and have only a dim recollection that by some process they were
persuaded not to have a separate X11. I didn't mean to suggest they
were paid a visit by a bunch of guys from Cupertino in black
turtlenecks.
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...
I've always thought fink should have its own X11 package and its own
compilers, but I am just a user and a non-core package maintainer. I
don't set the policy. Maybe this will spur them to do so. (They do
already have gcc/gfortran 4.4.1, but only some packages rely on it.)
in fact, the whole reason of divorcing from this "clobber /usr/X11"
distribution is to avoid issues just like this.
I think the goal is laudable. The means to getting there just came as
a time-consuming surprise on what otherwise was the most seamless OS X
upgrade I have experienced (I started with 10.0.4).
Anyway, many thanks for your work on X11, and I apologize for being so
disappointed your latest efforts weren't included in the SL install.
Bill Scott
_______________________________________________
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>) |
| >Re: SL's X11 (X11-users Digest, Vol 6, Issue 177) (From: Jeremy Huddleston <email@hidden>) |