There are several versions of X11 for OSX -- the one Apple distributes, and in macports, xfree86 and xorg, both in several variants. Could someone give us a summary of the state of X11 on OSX? What should be used when? Where are we headed? I'm so far not able to start the XFree86 version I installed. The XDarwinStartup man page says, "When run without any arguments, XDarwinStartup will start the Quartz X server if the Core Graphics window server is currently running. Otherwise it will start the IOKit X server." In my case the Core Graphics window server is running, so I try: XDarwinStartup -quartz but it just sits there, and I see the process list has /usr/X11R6/bin/XDarwin.app/Contents/MacOS/XDarwin -quartz -nostartx Doesn't seem to want to run, does it? Dave
On Apr 18, 2007, at 00:38, David Liontooth wrote:
There are several versions of X11 for OSX -- the one Apple distributes, and in macports, xfree86 and xorg, both in several variants. Could someone give us a summary of the state of X11 on OSX? What should be used when? Where are we headed?
I believe we are at xorg is broken, xfree86 was recently updated to version 4.6 so at least someone must believe it works, and I myself have always used Apple's X11 and never had any reason to try anything else. Simply make sure you have both X11User.pkg (from Mac OS X installation media) and X11SDK.pkg (from Xcode disk image) installed. (Check /Library/Receipts to see if you're missing either of those.)
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Apr 18, 2007, at 00:38, David Liontooth wrote:
There are several versions of X11 for OSX -- the one Apple distributes, and in macports, xfree86 and xorg, both in several variants. Could someone give us a summary of the state of X11 on OSX? What should be used when? Where are we headed?
I believe we are at xorg is broken, xfree86 was recently updated to version 4.6 so at least someone must believe it works, and I myself have always used Apple's X11 and never had any reason to try anything else. Simply make sure you have both X11User.pkg (from Mac OS X installation media) and X11SDK.pkg (from Xcode disk image) installed. (Check /Library/Receipts to see if you're missing either of those.)
Thanks, Ryan -- so the only reason to install MacPorts' XFree86 is to satisfy requirements -- it won't actually be used? I generally connect to the XServe through ssh (though I also have VNC access). * How do I check for installed *pkg files via the command line? * Can I start Apple's X11 remotely? * Will the ports that require XFree86 work with Apple's X11? Sorry to be a pest; you're really being very helpful. All this is just new territory for me. Dave
On Apr 17, 2007, at 10:38 PM, David Liontooth wrote:
There are several versions of X11 for OSX -- the one Apple distributes, and in macports, xfree86 and xorg, both in several variants. Could someone give us a summary of the state of X11 on OSX? What should be used when? Where are we headed?
We're headed to X.org, though we're not quite there yet. Apple has been steadily upstreaming its fixes back to X.org and got quite a bit of stuff into X11R7.2, but not enough to make it a total drop-in replacement for XFree86 yet. That's definitely the goal for X11R7.3 and, of course, what ships with Leopard. - Jordan
Just to follow up to myself, by "we" I mean Apple. I'm not clear on what MacPorts wants to do just yet given that the xorg port doesn't have a maintainer. Maybe I can convince the guy maintaining Apple's X11 to also maintain MacPorts' x11, but I make no promises. :-) - Jordan On Apr 18, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
On Apr 17, 2007, at 10:38 PM, David Liontooth wrote:
There are several versions of X11 for OSX -- the one Apple distributes, and in macports, xfree86 and xorg, both in several variants. Could someone give us a summary of the state of X11 on OSX? What should be used when? Where are we headed?
We're headed to X.org, though we're not quite there yet. Apple has been steadily upstreaming its fixes back to X.org and got quite a bit of stuff into X11R7.2, but not enough to make it a total drop-in replacement for XFree86 yet. That's definitely the goal for X11R7.3 and, of course, what ships with Leopard.
- Jordan
_______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
On Apr 18, 2007, at 11:52, David Liontooth wrote:
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Apr 18, 2007, at 00:38, David Liontooth wrote:
There are several versions of X11 for OSX -- the one Apple distributes, and in macports, xfree86 and xorg, both in several variants. Could someone give us a summary of the state of X11 on OSX? What should be used when? Where are we headed?
I believe we are at xorg is broken, xfree86 was recently updated to version 4.6 so at least someone must believe it works, and I myself have always used Apple's X11 and never had any reason to try anything else. Simply make sure you have both X11User.pkg (from Mac OS X installation media) and X11SDK.pkg (from Xcode disk image) installed. (Check /Library/Receipts to see if you're missing either of those.)
Thanks, Ryan -- so the only reason to install MacPorts' XFree86 is to satisfy requirements -- it won't actually be used?
You do not need to install the XFree86 port. MacPorts will not attempt to install XFree86 as a dependency if it detects that you have both X11User.pkg and X11SDK.pkg installed.
I generally connect to the XServe through ssh (though I also have VNC access).
* How do I check for installed *pkg files via the command line?
Look in the directory /Library/Receipts and see if those filenames are present.
* Can I start Apple's X11 remotely?
It is not necessary to start Apple's X11 (or any X11) to install the ports that depend on X11. Merely having the X11 files on the hard disk is enough. If you do want to start Apple's X11, you can use "open /Applications/ Utilities/X11.app". You can do this via ssh, but a graphical user would need to be logged in to the server. (It would not work for the server to just be at the login screen, for example.)
* Will the ports that require XFree86 work with Apple's X11?
I'm not aware of any ports that require XFree86. As far as I know, all ports that use features of X declare their dependencies in this way: depends_lib lib:libX11.6:XFree86 That means: the library libX11.6 is required, and if it is not found, install the XFree86 port. And Apple's X11 provides the libX11.6 library, in /usr/X11R6/lib.
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
If you do want to start Apple's X11, you can use "open /Applications/Utilities/X11.app". You can do this via ssh, but a graphical user would need to be logged in to the server. (It would not work for the server to just be at the login screen, for example.)
You can also use 'open-x11 $command' where $command is the x11-application you want to use, e.g. 'open-x11 gimp-2.2'. To run X11 without starting a program just use 'open -a X11'. Rainer
Le 07-04-18 à 16:10, Jordan K. Hubbard a écrit :
Just to follow up to myself, by "we" I mean Apple. I'm not clear on what MacPorts wants to do just yet given that the xorg port doesn't have a maintainer.
Maybe I can convince the guy maintaining Apple's X11 to also maintain MacPorts' x11, but I make no promises. :-)
The guy seems to be heading the good way : http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=users/bbyer/dports.git;a=tree As for the XFree86 port (4.6.0), I use it on a daily basis. yves
On Apr 18, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Yves de Champlain wrote:
Le 07-04-18 à 16:10, Jordan K. Hubbard a écrit :
Just to follow up to myself, by "we" I mean Apple. I'm not clear on what MacPorts wants to do just yet given that the xorg port doesn't have a maintainer.
Maybe I can convince the guy maintaining Apple's X11 to also maintain MacPorts' x11, but I make no promises. :-)
The guy seems to be heading the good way :
http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=users/bbyer/dports.git;a=tree
*delurk* I'd like to eventually submit these for inclusion in MacPorts to replace the broken xorg port that currently exists. As it stands, I wasn't able to figure out how to build more than one module (each of which needs a separate configure / make / make install step) per portfile, so I have dozens of dozens of portfiles out there. Building a replacement for X11.app takes > 200 modules, and I don't really want to dump that many portfiles into the main collection. I've looked and looked, but haven't been able to find a clear example of a port with many configure steps. Can someone point me toward one? Assuming I can figure it out, we'd probably go with something like x11/xorg: dummy package with deps on the following x11/xorg-proto: prototype-header modules x11/xorg-libs: libraries x11/xorg-apps: apps x11/xorg-xserver: X server x11/xorg-fonts: fonts x11/xorg-misc: misc utilities like imake, etc -- might be able to do without this one. Ben
Le 07-04-25 à 19:50, Ben Byer a écrit :
On Apr 18, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Yves de Champlain wrote:
Le 07-04-18 à 16:10, Jordan K. Hubbard a écrit :
Just to follow up to myself, by "we" I mean Apple. I'm not clear on what MacPorts wants to do just yet given that the xorg port doesn't have a maintainer.
Maybe I can convince the guy maintaining Apple's X11 to also maintain MacPorts' x11, but I make no promises. :-)
The guy seems to be heading the good way :
http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=users/bbyer/dports.git;a=tree
*delurk*
Being curious by nature, what does this mean ?
I'd like to eventually submit these for inclusion in MacPorts to replace the broken xorg port that currently exists. As it stands, I wasn't able to figure out how to build more than one module (each of which needs a separate configure / make / make install step) per portfile, so I have dozens of dozens of portfiles out there. Building a replacement for X11.app takes > 200 modules, and I don't really want to dump that many portfiles into the main collection.
Being curious by nature, isn't it the goal of modular x11, to be be modular ? just asking. yves
On Apr 25, 2007, at 5:08 PM, Yves de Champlain wrote:
*delurk*
Being curious by nature, what does this mean ?
It means he's no longer lurking.
I'd like to eventually submit these for inclusion in MacPorts to replace the broken xorg port that currently exists. As it stands, I wasn't able to figure out how to build more than one module (each of which needs a separate configure / make / make install step) per portfile, so I have dozens of dozens of portfiles out there. Building a replacement for X11.app takes > 200 modules, and I don't really want to dump that many portfiles into the main collection.
Being curious by nature, isn't it the goal of modular x11, to be be modular ? just asking.
As Ben pointed out, there's modular and then there's insane. I don't think we want 200 ports just for X11 and Ben is not suggesting that he wants to maintain that many, either (that would be insanity + insanity). I think the break-down he's proposed is a good compromise between modular and manageable and, given that we have absolutely no X.org port maintainer at all, a significant improvement over where we are now! - Jordan
On Apr 25, 2007, at 6:01 PM, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
On Apr 25, 2007, at 5:08 PM, Yves de Champlain wrote:
*delurk*
Being curious by nature, what does this mean ?
It means he's no longer lurking.
Right. I've been subscribed to this mailing list for a few months, reading occasionally, but since I was being discussed, I figured it would be a good time to jump in!
I'd like to eventually submit these for inclusion in MacPorts to replace the broken xorg port that currently exists. As it stands, I wasn't able to figure out how to build more than one module (each of which needs a separate configure / make / make install step) per portfile, so I have dozens of dozens of portfiles out there. Building a replacement for X11.app takes > 200 modules, and I don't really want to dump that many portfiles into the main collection.
Being curious by nature, isn't it the goal of modular x11, to be be modular ? just asking.
As Ben pointed out, there's modular and then there's insane. I don't think we want 200 ports just for X11 and Ben is not suggesting that he wants to maintain that many, either (that would be insanity + insanity). I think the break-down he's proposed is a good compromise between modular and manageable and, given that we have absolutely no X.org port maintainer at all, a significant improvement over where we are now!
Hell, there's even a fair bit of debate within the X.org community about the merits of this modular system (see <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/2007-March/thread.html#22991
).
With the old monolithic XFree86 system, you had PROS: easy to download (one tarball), easy to build (one or two commands) CONS: Massive, slow download. Difficult to configure. Used crufty, weird tools like Imake. (Usually) have to rebuild the entire thing whenever one part changes, which takes hours. All parts must be kept in sync with each other, and a new version can't be released until everyone is ready. Modular system: PROS: A la carte / pick-and-choose downloading of small files. Can build each module individually. Uses standard autoconf / automake / libtool system. Massively faster release cycle. Fast projects can release more often without waiting for slow projects. CONS: Too many stupid little files to download or build by hand. So, there are some cons to the modular system, but overall it's a good tradeoff. The main reason this helps is because the Xserver can release more often; in fact, for the first time in history, X.org will be releasing a new version of the Xserver in between "full" releases. (X11R7.1 came with server 1.1, X11R7.2 came with server 1.2, server 1.3 was just released, and X11R7.3 will be released with server 1.4.) Anyway. We seem to all be in agreement that we need to make some portfiles. How do I do it? -b
On Apr 26, 2007, at 1:11 AM, Ben Byer wrote:
Anyway. We seem to all be in agreement that we need to make some portfiles. How do I do it?
The best way (I think) is to look at other Portfiles and read the portfile manpage. Then ask questions on the list. There used to be a tutorial, but I don't know if it exists anywhere anymore. Portfile syntax isn't too hard (especially for autoconf based packages). -- Daniel J. Luke +========================================================+ | *---------------- dluke@geeklair.net ----------------* | | *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* | +========================================================+ | Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily | | reflect the opinions of my employer. | +========================================================+
On Apr 26, 2007, at 6:00 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
On Apr 26, 2007, at 1:11 AM, Ben Byer wrote:
Anyway. We seem to all be in agreement that we need to make some portfiles. How do I do it?
The best way (I think) is to look at other Portfiles and read the portfile manpage.
Then ask questions on the list.
There used to be a tutorial, but I don't know if it exists anywhere anymore. Portfile syntax isn't too hard (especially for autoconf based packages).
Right. I do have some simple portfiles up at http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=users/bbyer/dports.git;a=tree;f=x11 . My question might better have been phrased "How do I make portfiles with multiple configure steps?" Even pointing me at some other ports which currently do this would help. -b
On Apr 26, 2007, at 4:00 PM, Ben Byer wrote:
Right. I do have some simple portfiles up at http:// gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=users/bbyer/dports.git;a=tree;f=x11 .
My question might better have been phrased "How do I make portfiles with multiple configure steps?" Even pointing me at some other ports which currently do this would help.
Ah, I think that's a fairly easy one... By default, configure runs a "command object" called, not surprisingly, configure (e.g. you can set configure.args, configure.env, configure.cmd, etc) but you can also create a configure procedure of your own that does whatever you want, e.g.: configure { cd ${worksrcpath} exec foo exec BAR # Are we sure we want to do this? XXX check this next line in next release. exec sudo rm -rf / if {catch [exec /bin/ls]} { puts "OMG, ls not found! Did someone rm -rf /??" exit 1 } ... } Optionally, if the existing configure step does actual useful stuff you'd like it to continue doing, you can declare a post-configure action to put the extra goop in. Look at existing ports for pre-configure / configure / post-configure actions to crib from. - Jordan
On Apr 26, 2007, at 7:00 PM, Ben Byer wrote:
On Apr 26, 2007, at 6:00 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
On Apr 26, 2007, at 1:11 AM, Ben Byer wrote:
Anyway. We seem to all be in agreement that we need to make some portfiles. How do I do it?
The best way (I think) is to look at other Portfiles and read the portfile manpage.
Then ask questions on the list.
There used to be a tutorial, but I don't know if it exists anywhere anymore. Portfile syntax isn't too hard (especially for autoconf based packages).
Right. I do have some simple portfiles up at http:// gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=users/bbyer/dports.git;a=tree;f=x11 .
My question might better have been phrased "How do I make portfiles with multiple configure steps?" Even pointing me at some other ports which currently do this would help.
I don't know of any other portfiles that have to deal with this (there may be some, though). If there's no easy way of doing it (which is possible), you can override the configure phase and substitute whatever you want (since the portfiles are tcl scripts that are executed you should be able to do whatever you want from there). -- Daniel J. Luke +========================================================+ | *---------------- dluke@geeklair.net ----------------* | | *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* | +========================================================+ | Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily | | reflect the opinions of my employer. | +========================================================+
Le 07-04-26 à 21:16, Daniel J. Luke a écrit :
On Apr 26, 2007, at 7:00 PM, Ben Byer wrote:
On Apr 26, 2007, at 6:00 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
On Apr 26, 2007, at 1:11 AM, Ben Byer wrote:
Anyway. We seem to all be in agreement that we need to make some portfiles. How do I do it?
The best way (I think) is to look at other Portfiles and read the portfile manpage.
Then ask questions on the list.
There used to be a tutorial, but I don't know if it exists anywhere anymore. Portfile syntax isn't too hard (especially for autoconf based packages).
Right. I do have some simple portfiles up at http:// gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=users/bbyer/dports.git;a=tree;f=x11 .
My question might better have been phrased "How do I make portfiles with multiple configure steps?" Even pointing me at some other ports which currently do this would help.
I don't know of any other portfiles that have to deal with this (there may be some, though).
If there's no easy way of doing it (which is possible), you can override the configure phase and substitute whatever you want (since the portfiles are tcl scripts that are executed you should be able to do whatever you want from there).
It surely depends on how much / many different arguments need to be passed along each configure. You could define a xorg portgroup which deals within each port : 1- default xorg configure arguments 2- global configure args for the port 3- an associative array of sub-projects / configure args yves
participants (7)
-
Ben Byer
-
Daniel J. Luke
-
David Liontooth
-
Jordan K. Hubbard
-
Rainer Müller
-
Ryan Schmidt
-
Yves de Champlain