OpenBSD Journal

HOWTO: Compile XFREE86 4.3.0 from source in OpenBSD

Contributed by jose on from the help! dept.

Anonymous Coward writes: "Hi Everyone:

Does anyone here know how to compile XFree86 4.3.0 from source for OpenBSD 3.3/SPARC?

I am running a SS/5 w/ 2.1 GB HD, 96 MB RAM, and OpenBSD 3.3 sans X11R6 packages is running on it.

I have already started compiling the source code (from gzipped tarballs at:, and have run into an impasse.

Here is my dilemma:

[as superuser]:


 # make World >& world.log 

 # make install >& install.log

 # vi install.log
(The log reads:)
 make: don't know how to make 



 Stop in: /tmp/xc/config (line 1072 of Makefile)

 Stop in: /tmp/xc/ (line 1108 of xmakefile)

 Stop in: /tmp/xc (line 216 of Makefile)
Can anyone help me with this.

I compiled from the 7 gzip'ed tarballs (XFree86src-1.tgz, etc.) from, used cc as the C compiler, and unpacked everything into /tmp, a 700MB HD partition.

I have already debugged most of the configuration files needed by XF86, this was where I got stuck. No changes that were not outlined explicitly by the XFREE86 install notes and OpenBSD-specific notes were made to any configuration file."

Anyone have any suggestions? Is this possible to have XF86 4.3 on Sparc?

(Comments are closed)

  1. By G () on
    I doubt Xsun server has (ever) changed
    SS5 is quite slow, so use Alpha/Pentium3/UltraSparc to fit build into one day

    1. By Todd T. Fries () on

      $ cat XF4/distrib/sets/lists/xserv/md.sparc* | grep bin/X | sort -u

      Hmm, Xsun, eh?

      It hasn't been around for a while now:

      md.sparc.diff 1.7 vs 1.8

  2. By Noob () on

    I don't know if this would help you, but if I wanted to get 4.3.0 running on my OpenBSD system, I would probably trying using OpenBSD-Current since I think they are at 4.3.0 now. If I wanted to compile it myself, then I would refer to the "man release" documentation on how to build X.

    1. By Len Zaifman () on

      A version of OpenBSD current about a week old now reports that -current on i386 is running XF 4.3.0. I am not running -current on any sparc systems so I cannot verify for those.
      OpenBSD version
      uname -a
      OpenBSD emc2srv.emc2.local 3.3 GENERIC#66 i386
      XF86 version
      leonardz@emc2srv leonardz > /usr/X11R6/bin/XFree86 -version

      XFree86 Version 4.3.0 (for OpenBSD)
      Release Date: 27 February 2003
      X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0, Release 6.6
      Build Operating System: OpenBSD 3.3 i386 [ELF]
      Build Date: 18 June 2003

  3. By Anonymous Coward () on

    You might try checking the code out from CVS and compiling that with the help of release(8).

  4. By Anonymous Coward () on

    How is this appropriate for deadly? There are several help forums around for OpenBSD support and mailing lists to boot.

    Has deadly come to this level? I don't come here to answer support questions. I come here to find out what's going on with OBSD. My favorite Operating System.

    I hate to be rude, to this guy who's obviously looking for an answer to his question but... please try to use appropriate means, mailing lists, support forums, etc. of which there are several.

    Is anybody else with me, when I say that I don't want to come to deadly to read this?

    Just needed to vent. Sorry Jose. Bygones!

    1. By jose () on

      that's cool, and a fair question. yeah, sometimes people do come here asking for help, and honestly i think on occassion some of the more interesting questions (ie !i386 platforms) bring out interesting stuff. i wa sactually hoping to find out if my recent experiences with trying to get XF86 4.3 on 3.3-rel was related at all to something like propolice or W^X, something deeply insightful.

      yeah, maybe the poster should have groked through some archivs first, but i was hoping for some really interesting answer to this one. and i view these as a community building exercise, having the community help others out as they themselves get helped. *shrug*

      you do have to admit i've been working on keeping the quality higher lately.

      1. By Matt () on

        I think you're doing a good job. Given the choice, I would much rather have more stories to read and be able to pick out what I consider to be the chaff. This post was probably a bit better suited to the mailing lists, but I'd rather you err on posting a little too much rather than holding back because someone might not think the topic is profound and original.

        Keep up the good work Jose.

      2. By a non e-mouse cow herd. () on

        QC on deadly is always quite high, especially compared to higher traffic daily tech news sites (e.g. how many times have you seen the _same_ story posted on /. even several times on the same day?). Just because a topic could be discussed on other forums, does not negate its usefulness here (assuming it's on topic, and again - deadly shines in that respect).

        I love that it's low volume, and often even higher signal:noise than misc@.

Latest Articles


Copyright © - Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]