From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 11 23:16:43 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C27F16A4CE for ; Sun, 11 Jul 2004 23:16:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from straycat.dhs.org (h0050da134090.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.91.148.154]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E924643D2F for ; Sun, 11 Jul 2004 23:16:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tmclaugh@sdf.lonestar.org) Received: (qmail 31965 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2004 23:16:42 -0000 Received: from compass.straycat.dhs.org (HELO ?192.168.1.32?) (192.168.1.32) by alexandria.straycat.dhs.org with SMTP; 11 Jul 2004 23:16:42 -0000 From: Tom McLaughlin To: Bruno Czekay In-Reply-To: <40F1AB4F.3050605@domar.pl> References: <40F1AB4F.3050605@domar.pl> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1089587801.703.46.camel@compass.straycat.dhs.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 19:16:42 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: ports@freebsd.org cc: james@now.ie Subject: Re: Triple VNC X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 23:16:43 -0000 On Sun, 2004-07-11 at 17:04, Bruno Czekay wrote: > Hi > > I wanted to make some tests between (Real) VNC, TightVNC and TridiaVNC > servers (run on FreeBSD) against their clients, installed both on > FreeBSD and Windows. But every package installs itself as Xvnc, > vncserver, vncviever etc. Wouldn't it be more useful, if enhanced > versions installed themselves as Xvnc-tight and Xvnc-tridia? > > I do understand, that not many people install all those packages, and > maybe they want to have just 'vncserver' on their systems, not > 'vncserver-some-extra-crap'. In this case, Makefile for enhanced version > can test, if there exist "official" vnc binary - if not, enhanced > version is symlinked to it. > > This would also require patching Xvnc (as this a perl script). If you > consider it useful, I can send appropriate patches. > > Best regards The first problem I see is you install the tightvnc package and it creates bin/vncviewer which is a symlink to bin/vncviewer-tight and then you install realvnc. I believe that if you overwrite the existing symlink you will overwrite the symlink target. So by installing realvnc's bin/vncviewer you will overwrite tightvnc's bin/vncviewer-tight. I haven't tried this with any ports, simply copying files around and copying to the symlink overwrote the target file. The second problem I see is which package owns bin/vncviewer? Both would own bin/vncviewer according to their package lists and both would want to remove the file. You could do away with the symlink and have tightvnc simply install just bin/vncviewer-tight but that creates a problem for frontends like tsclient which look for a vncviewer binary. Now someone is forced to install realvnc to use tsclient when they already have tightvnc. I think leaving them the way they are is probably the best way to go. Thanks. Tom