From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Jun 1 12:48: 3 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from kalaid.f2f.com.ua (kalaid.f2f.com.ua [62.149.0.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37F7A37B422; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:47:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sobomax@mail-in.net) Received: from mail.uic-in.net (root@[212.35.189.4]) by kalaid.f2f.com.ua (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f51JmQB76583; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 22:48:30 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from sobomax@mail-in.net) Received: from vega.vega.com (root@das0-l101.uic-in.net [212.35.189.228]) by mail.uic-in.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f51JiVo45483; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 22:44:34 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from sobomax@mail-in.net) Received: from FreeBSD.org (big_brother.vega.com [192.168.1.1]) by vega.vega.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f51JiTl15016; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 22:44:29 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <3B17F09C.2EFB0B48@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 22:44:28 +0300 From: Maxim Sobolev Organization: Vega International Capital X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en,uk,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Meyer Cc: anders@fix.no, andreas@FreeBSD.ORG, eric@cybernut.com, ijliao@FreeBSD.ORG, jdp@FreeBSD.ORG, jdp@polstra.com, jmz@FreeBSD.ORG, jseger@FreeBSD.ORG, keith@FreeBSD.ORG, knu@FreeBSD.ORG, lioux@FreeBSD.ORG, matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org, mi@aldan.algebra.com, nectar@FreeBSD.ORG, nobutaka@nobutaka.com, obrien@FreeBSD.ORG, ozz@FreeBSD.org.ru, sam@inf.enst.fr, sheldonh@FreeBSD.ORG, shige@FreeBSD.ORG, trevor@FreeBSD.ORG, yatt@msc.biglobe.ne.jp, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: WITHOUT_X vs. WITHOUT_X11 vs. NO_X References: <15127.61125.223478.210748@guru.mired.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Mike Meyer wrote: > Various ports test NO_X, WITHOUT_X, or WITHOUT_X11 to see if they > should build without X support. The make.conf man page was recently > changed to indicate to users that WITHOUT_X is the variable to use for > that. My searches of the -ports archive didn't turn up anything, so > there may not have been sufficient discussion of it before this > happened. > > NO_X is documented as disabling X supportin parts of the base > system. While using this for ports is a logical extension of that, > it's not clear that the same flag should be used for ports and for the > base system. If you're building packages on a system on which you > don't run X, you might want to set NO_X for the base system, but have > the packages default to building with support for X. > > WITHOUT_X11 includes the version number of X, which is > inappropriate. If we ever need to distinguish between X versions, then > X_VERSION - matching XFREE86_VERSION - would be more appropriate. > > Since WITHOUT_X has already been documented, fixing the ports that > used one of the other variables to use that one relatively soon would > be a good thing. Unless there's a good reason to use one of the other > two, that is. I'm voting for WITHOUT_X11 - it is unlikely that we will see X12 in a foreseable future, so why to bother? -Maxim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message