Re: x11 clashes of base and pkg [Was Re: Confusing versioning scheme of freetyp2?]

[Cág <ca6c%bitmessage.ch@localhost>]

Ian D. Leroux wrote:
 
> It seems to me that this thread is talking about four different
> problems, and it would be useful to tackle them separately.  I'm afraid
> that I've confused matters by reusing one of Cág's examples for a
> different problem, so here's my attempt to clarify:
> 
> 1- Can one build packages from source that use base X11 where possible
> and get consistent results?  As asked in
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-users/2018/05/08/msg026660.html
> This works for many of us and, as of
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-users/2018/05/08/msg026668.html
> seems to work for Mayuresh (?).  If it doesn't work, there's a bug in
> the affected packages.

Yes, and if no, then it's a bug. I didn't really doubt it.
 
> 2- Can one set up a /usr/pkg tree using *only* packages downloaded from
> the  official repos, on a machine that has the x11 sets installed,
> without  getting link errors?  As asked in
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-users/2018/05/07/msg026655.html
> I haven't tested this personally, but I would expect it to work and I
> would consider any package from the official repos that doesn't work in
> this case to be buggy.

Yes, and if no, then it's a bug, right.
 
> 3- Can one combine locally-built packages with packages downloaded from
> official repos

Yes, sometimes I download build dependencies to cut some time.

> 4- Is the x11 in base useful/usable?  Some of us find it so, though
> parts of it are old, as you've just pointed out.

Well, if you find it usable, then it is so :)

> If someone has energy to invest in updating Mesalib in base I'm sure
> we'd all appreciate it, but I for one am happy to use what we've got
> (in -current).

I'm pretty sure it's not only Mesa. Xorg itself is 1.18.4 from 2016,
and, though 1.19 is from 2016 too, it was a big release.

-- 
caóc