Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:34:22 -0500 From: John Merryweather Cooper <john_m_cooper@yahoo.com> To: Dejan Lesjak <dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: Merging X11BASE to LOCALBASE Message-ID: <44B578EE.202@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <200607130024.18047.dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> References: <200607130024.18047.dejan.lesjak@ijs.si>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dejan Lesjak wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There were a couple of debates already concerning /usr/X11R6 as prefix for X11
> ports and a bunch of other ports that currently by default install there.
> Quite some people were, when creating a new port that depends on X11,
> wandering whether to put it in X11BASE or LOCALBASE. More than once a
> question of whether the prefix /usr/X11R6 should be just dropped or at least
> only retained for core X11 distribution. With the upcoming X.org 7.x ports
> there is perhaps the opportunity to do the prefix merger along that.
> Moving X11 prefix to LOCALBASE would simplify above dilemma. It would be also
> more similar to where linux distributions are going (at least Gentoo, Debian
> and Fedora deprecated /usr/X11R6 in favour of /usr which, while
> not /usr/local is the location of where all packages install - depending on
> X11 or not). If I remember correctly from previous discussions, it would be
> more convenient to people with separate mounts for installed packages as
> well. /usr/local is also the default value for --prefix configure option for
> X.org packages.
> So it is general intention to go with /usr/local or rather ${LOCALBASE} as
> prefix for X11 ports. If anyone feels that this is horribly wrong, please
> speak up.
>
> On behalf of x11 team,
> Dejan
>
What impact (if any) would the doubling or tripling of the number of
files in ./bin have on searching along PATH? Would we be shooting
ourselves in the foot if we did this?
jmc
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44B578EE.202>