Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 00:20:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> To: Rich Murphey <rich@rich.isdn.bcm.tmc.edu> Cc: asami@FreeBSD.org, torstenb@FreeBSD.org, ports@FreeBSD.org, FreeBSD current <freebsd-current@freefall.FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: xpm static library Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.961016001625.887B-100000@baud.eng.umd.edu> In-Reply-To: <199610160414.XAA25640@richc.isdn.bcm.tmc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 15 Oct 1996, Rich Murphey wrote: > |From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> > |> |Just let me jump in here a moment. All that stuff is controlled by > |> |FreeBSD.cf, which we really ought to get some chance to tweak, you know. > |> |Before it becomes a regular part of a distribution is the right time to > |> |consider it. > |> | > |> |One possibility is to ask that a site.def file be sited in OUR > |> |/usr/share/mk directory, so we could get our own meathooks on part of the > |> |config. > |> > |> Yep, FreeBSD.cf would be the ideal place to '#define > |> ForceNormalLib YES' specificly for FreeBSD. Would that > |> fix it? Rich > | > |Yes and no. It won't fix it as long as the location of that file is > |defined to be inside the XFree86 distribution, where our cvs can't touch > |it. Would be kinda nice if either that file or site def (which is > |currently in /usr/X11R6/lib/X11config and totally _empty_) were sited > |somewhere accessible to our tree. > > Hmm.. like /etc? That particular location is used for > other things like XF86Config, so there's a precedent of > sorts. And since it's already used for a similar > purpose by other OSes as well there's a chance it would > be less surprising to them. > > |Personally, I would want some chance to mess with the contents of that > |file by giving verbal input to XFree86 members, but not have that inside > |our tree. I would have the site.def in our tree somewhere, where it being > |empty or missing wouldn't kill things. > > There's no reason you couldn't search /etc first for > site.def and /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/config last. Would > that help? Rich Well, that satisfies me, sort of. It doesn't give me direct control over it, but that's probably all to the good. I think at this point it's time to get the suggestion reviewed, by a different audience than ports. The point is to give ports some direct control over how X11 ports are built and stored. I'm going to copy this to current, and listen to the howls. > ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@eng.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 9120 Edmonston Ct #302 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and n3lxx, both FreeBSD (301) 220-2114 | version 2.2 current -- and great FUN! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSF.3.95.961016001625.887B-100000>