| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dr_Who
n00b
Joined: 17 Apr 2004
Posts: 11
Location: Canada
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2004 5:43 am Post subject: xfree 4.4.4 stable ebuild? |
 |
|
I'm new to the gentoo community, and just had a quick question(s).
How long does it take for new releases to come out on the portage tree? I noticed that xfree 4.4.4 was out and now stable but not on the package list. is there any plans for this to be done? i saw a document on howto make your own ebuilds, however haven't had a chance to read it. is it hard?
-DrWho |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Stormy Eyes
Veteran
Joined: 09 Apr 2003
Posts: 1064
Location: Watching God spit-shine my boots.
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2004 5:48 am Post subject: Re: xfree 4.4.4 stable ebuild? |
|
|
| Dr_Who wrote: | I'm new to the gentoo community, and just had a quick question(s).
How long does it take for new releases to come out on the portage tree? I noticed that xfree 4.4.4 was out and now stable but not on the package list. is there any plans for this to be done? i saw a document on howto make your own ebuilds, however haven't had a chance to read it. is it hard?
-DrWho |
It looks like XFree86 will no longer be updated in portage due to license issues. Do a search through the forums on xorg-x11, read about it, and install xorg-x11 if you want to upgrade your X Window System. Xorg is completely compatible with XFree86; it works just as well and supports nVidia's binary driver if you use it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr_Who
n00b
Joined: 17 Apr 2004
Posts: 11
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2004 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
crazy!
ok, thanks for the quick responce. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HydroSan
l33t
Joined: 04 Mar 2004
Posts: 764
Location: The Kremlin (aka Canada)
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2004 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes. XFree86's license was changed as of 4.4.0 RC2. RC3 featured the new license, and most of the major distributions of Linux (RedHat, Mandrake, SuSe, Debian, Gentoo...  ) all dropped it like a hot potato. XOrg is the GPL fork of the XFree project. IIRC, they took the source of XFree 4.4.0 RC2 and re-GPL'd it.
It's KIND of what happened to DivX and XviD.
_________________
I was a Gangster for Capitalism, by Major General Smedley Butler.
Server status: Currently down, being replaced with fresh install - 20% completed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chris.pickett
n00b
Joined: 05 Apr 2004
Posts: 72
Location: Montreal
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2004 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm sorry, but even if it were possible to "re-GPL" something, how on earth do you do that to a project that isn't under the GPL in the first place (xfree-4.4-rc2), and for which the new target project isn't under the GPL either (xorg-6.7.0). Also, I just checked, and AFAICT, the Xorg-6.7.0 license hasn't changed from the xfree-4.4-rc2 license (although I might be missing something). The only difference is that xfree-4.4-rc3+ are not _compatible_ with the GPL, whereas rc2 and below are. No offense intended, but please get your facts straight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
s3ntient
Guru
Joined: 13 Apr 2003
Posts: 304
Location: Lyon, France
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2004 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Exactly..
From x.org:
| Quote: | The X.Org repository is based on XFree86 4.4 RC2. Just before its 4.4 release, XFree86 adopted a new license possibly incompatible with the GPL. For this reason, we have recreated its tree as closely as possible without importing files affected by the new license. The monolithic tree is being referred to as simply "XOrg".
X11R6.7.0 contains substantial updates beyond XFree86 4.4RC2, as mentioned in the X11R6.7.0 release notes, including updated versions of Render, Xft, and fontconfig, and a greatly improved Cygwin/X port. |
From the Readme:
| Quote: | X Window System source code is covered by many licenses. All of these licenses have in common the fact that they do not impose significant conditions on the modification or redistribution or either source code or binaries beyond requiring one or more of the following:
1. Copyright and/or license notices are left intact.
2. Copyright and/or license notices are reproduced verbatim in documentation accompanying binary distributions.
3. Attributions are included with documentation accompanying binaries.
Most of these licenses are based on the MIT, X Consortium, or BSD (original and revised) licenses. All of them are consistent with the Open Source Definition, and most are consistent with the Free Software Foundation's Free Software Definition. |
_________________
http://blog.chaostrophy.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Desktop Environments
