From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Jun 2 9:12:46 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from relay.nuxi.com (nuxi.cs.ucdavis.edu [169.237.7.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 702BE37B422; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 09:12:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien@nuxi.ucdavis.edu) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (root@[206.40.252.115]) by relay.nuxi.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f52GCgl82707; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 09:12:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien@NUXI.com) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id f52GCgF74343; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 09:12:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 09:12:38 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" To: portsmgr@freebsd.org Cc: Mike Meyer , ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: WITHOUT_X vs. WITHOUT_X11 vs. NO_X Message-ID: <20010602091237.B73968@dragon.nuxi.com> Reply-To: obrien@freebsd.org References: <15127.61125.223478.210748@guru.mired.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <15127.61125.223478.210748@guru.mired.org>; from mwm@mired.org on Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 02:36:37PM -0500 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT Organization: The NUXI BSD group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 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 *sigh* this is comming up *AGAIN*?!?!? Portsmgrs, when this last came up, people seemed to agree on "WITHOUT_X11" so I changed my ports to use that. Now it seems WITHOUT_X has gotten documented as the proper way. We came to a consensis to use "WITHOUT_X11" in a discussion on freebsd-ports April 26-May 2, 2001. It seems that "WITHOUT_X" was recently "decided" upon by the freebsd-doc list and may have gotten written down somewhere. I don't know why freebsd-doc thinks it can decide ports issues. But anyway this is what is adding to the confusion. As our Ports Collection leaders, please consider the below and decree what the correct knob will be so we can get on with our lives. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 02:36:37PM -0500, 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. > > Thanx, > -- > Mike Meyer http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ > Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message