On Wednesday 23 May 2007 18:46:41 Roland Smith wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 06:18:12PM -0300, JoaoBR wrote:
> > On Wednesday 23 May 2007 17:51:34 Roland Smith wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 05:29:54PM -0300, JoaoBR wrote:
> > > > I also haven't read anything and got terrible caught by this 7.2 xorg
> > > > thing
> > >
> > > Says it all, really. :-)
> >
> > you're not laughing at me aren't you?
>
> A little. Ignoring /usr/{ports|src}/UPDATING usually has predictable
> results. Been there, done that. :-)
>good to know, so at the end nobody is alone and some beast will bite me again sooner or later at the same place :) > > > > and kind of lame that portupgrade xorg does not install the modules, > > > > > > And how is portupgrade to know which specific drivers you need? > > > > good question deserve good answers: how the heck portupgrade did it > > before? > > It didn't. All the drivers were in one huge package, the X server. Now > they are in seperate ports. But the xorg or xorgs-drivers meta-ports > should install all of them. ok, that is what I ment, the better way would be that portupgrade installs them all as before (when they were in the package) I believe that is unusual that some de-installs xorg and installs the meta port then and also I am not sure but I believe that xorg needs some drivers in any case so it should be a necessary step or dependency here > > That's funny. :-) If you can't be bothered to read UPDATING, you are not > the person to tell the maintainers that they haven't "thought it > through". yup, that is right but life is hard either way and it is never fair to all of us, but then, thinking well, we might discover that the critics are ever a valid input even if appear to one or another as offense they might not been thought to be so > > Tools like portupgrade and portmaster and even the ports system are > great but they have their limitations. I think they are kept relatively > simple for a reason. It's much better to have a simple (maintainable) > tool that does 95% of the jobs well than to build an extremely > complicated ACME contraption that can cover all the corner cases and > oddball situations. It's just not worth the effort. I agree and totally understandable but when there is a big change involved then it would be wise to advise more clearly what is happening from within the upgrade process because almost nobody reads the files especially when he portupgraded flawless something like xorg for years, even from x86 to xorg was a no-issue at all but there was a scary name-change. other ports do it for less and a message like local base has changed you need to edit your xorg.conf or something would do good here -- João A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
