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 12:07:58 -0700
On Aug 29, 2009, at 11:13, William G. Scott wrote:
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.
Again, I'm sorry. Had I known this would be an issue, I would've
waited until after SL shipped to release 2.4.0. I honestly didn't
expect it to be such an issue...
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.
Ok, well I'm sorry for the down time. I wish I could've been more
explicit about what was being included in SL.
That being said, the fact that we're moving the macosforge.org
releases to a different prefix for SL means that these issues are
pretty much behind us at this point.
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.
One reason is that the internal bits (/usr/X11/lib/libXplugin.dylib)
are completely different for SL than Leopard. The API is the same,
but the internals are updated for SL. This is one of the reasons why
X11 windows look like SL windows rather than Tiger windows.
Additionally, installing 2.4.0's libGL or X11.bin would downgrade your
GLX support to whatever extensions were supported on Leopard and not
in SnowLeopard.
But the MAIN reason is that installing over /usr/X11 caused far more
headaches than it was worth, and we don't want to go down that road
again in SnowLeopard.
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.
This was mentioned in xquartz-dev about a month ago. I'm sorry you
didn't get the memo.
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.
Well the bulk of that work is present in the version in SL. Only a
few changes from that are in 2.4.0 (namely the movement to the 1.5.x
server branch). Since SL's X11 is "good enough", we don't need to
clobber it to have a usable X11. XQuartz.MacOSForge.org will still
put out releases, but these releases will live side-by-side with the
OS-packaged version of X11.
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?
Yes.
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.
Yes, perhaps I should've put that on the website. I mentioned it in
the xquartz-dev mailing list, but didn't see a need to put it on the
website. I will update the website with more information after
finishing this email.
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.
I didn't even "convince" them... that was a decision they made without
any consultation from me or anyone else at Apple. Had they bothered
to ask, I would've suggested they do the same thing in fink that I did
with MacPorts.
In fact, this was discussed wrt the whole .la / xmkmf issue... and as
I recall, there was a bunch of "it will take too much work to do
______, so we'll just spend hours upon hours writing emails explaining
why it's too much work" from the fink developers... so I spent about 2
days doing said work in MacPorts as proof-of-concept that there was
more time being wasted complaining than was needed to fix the
problem. That argument still applies to this situation.
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).
I apologize for this hiccup. If this is the biggest bump you are
facing (software released 2 weeks after GM necessitated a
recompilation), then we did a good job.
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.
Most of them were. The 1.5 server just wasn't stable enough when it
came down to the wire. The 1.4 server in 2.3.4 includes many of the
fixes that went into 2.4.0, and hopefully a SU will pick up more.
--Jeremy
_______________________________________________
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>) |
| >Re: SL's X11 (X11-users Digest, Vol 6, Issue 177) (From: "William G. Scott" <email@hidden>) |