Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 14:46:08 +0300 (EEST) From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@mail-in.net> To: mwm@mired.org Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: WITHOUT_X vs. WITHOUT_X11 vs. NO_X Message-ID: <200106021146.f52Bk6o50527@mail.uic-in.net> In-Reply-To: <15128.50553.982683.359455@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 2 Jun 2001 05:52:41 -0500, Mike Meyer wrote:
> Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@mail-in.net> types:
> > -doc desn't have any authority over -ports issues. This
> > question was discusses some time ago and consensus
> > reached about WITHOUT_X11. Documentation should
> > follow architecture desisions, not otherwise.
> =
> If the decisions aren't documented when they're made, then they can't
> be followed - and as such are a waste of time and effort. *Especially*
> when the decision isn't an architecture decision, but is simply the
> choice of a name.
Well, call it whatever you like (I don't really care) but it
certainly a -ports issue and as such should be addressed
by the -ports team, not -doc or any other group out there.
> If this one had been documented when it was made
> (BTW, when and where was that? It's wasn't in the -ports list archives
> when I checked a few days ago), then people wouldn't be using three
> different names to build ports without X and the issue never would
> have come up.
I do not know where you searched, but this certainly was
discusses (see attached message - later I can send you a
whole thread if you really want it). It is true that nobody
had enforced that decision yet, but it is only matter of time.
It is already in my TODO list, but I wouldn't mind if somebody
will beat me on it. ;)
-Maxim
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:15:51 -0500
From: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu>
To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG>
Cc: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG, Gregory Neil Shapiro <gshapiro@FreeBSD.ORG>,
freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Turning off X11 support in ports
Message-ID: <20010426131551.Q5017@casimir.physics.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu>
References: <200104261536.f3QFapp64509@freefall.freebsd.org> <15080.17846.8=
66318
.148776@horsey.gshapiro.net> <20010426095746.B84210@dragon.nuxi.com> <3AE85=
715.C
D788EDC@FreeBSD.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=3Dpgp-sha1;
protocol=3D"application/pgp-signature"; boundary=3D"DTeHUGp76GcuSc2=
J"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i
In-Reply-To: <3AE85715.CD788EDC@FreeBSD.org>; from sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG on T=
hu, A
pr 26, 2001 at 08:12:54PM +0300
X-Operating-System: Linux 2.2.18 sparc64
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: [Ld!!o23"!K:Q!!PE*"!
--DTeHUGp76GcuSc2J
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 08:12:54PM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> I would propose WITHOUT_X11, as it's more correct.
I agree with Maxim.
--=3D20
wca
--DTeHUGp76GcuSc2J
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE66GXWF47idPgWcsURAu3nAJ0aKehc0aDvPHsajKGAcKTAjctFOACfW1pl
4jqCGdXH/waFCi0eJBMSmiQ=3D
=3DbiBc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--DTeHUGp76GcuSc2J--
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200106021146.f52Bk6o50527>