Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:55:45 -0500 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, freebsd-x11@freebsd.org, Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: Merging X11BASE to LOCALBASE Message-ID: <20060714195545.GA78103@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <44B7F182.8080009@FreeBSD.org> References: <200607130024.18047.dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> <44B740A5.6050709@FreeBSD.org> <200607141300.43547.dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> <44B7F182.8080009@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 12:33:22PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > Dejan Lesjak wrote: > > On Friday 14 July 2006 08:58, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > >> What's the gain?=20 > >=20 > > I believe I mentioned some of gains in first mail. There is also the be= nefit=20 > > of less divergence to upstreams as ./configure scripts of various ports= =20 > > use /usr/local as default prefix, but more importantly as modular X.org= is=20 > > becoming more widespread there is tendency of various packagers (for ex= ample=20 > > Linux distributions already mentioned) to install all packages under sa= me=20 > > prefix. We expect that if we follow that trend, we would make maintaine= rs and=20 > > users' lives a bit easier in the long run. >=20 > Note, I am still making up my mind about whether what you're proposing is= a > good idea or not, so I'm not intending this as a criticism. However, the > argument you propose above as a benefit for the move is completely specio= us. > Our ports are supposed to be prefix-clean no matter what the defaults in = the > distributed software are, and no matter what prefix the user chooses. Thus > (other than ports which are broken now which need fixing anyway), the only > thing this move will do is ADD work for maintainers (at least in the short > run), it will not make anyone's life easier in this area. >=20 > I would also like to reinforce Maxim's point here, since I think it's > getting lost in the shuffle. The burden to the users is NOT just > reinstalling, which with modern tools like portmaster or portupgrade shou= ld > be pretty painless, if not time consuming. There is also the burden to our > users of editing config files, firefox app preferences, etc. etc. Some of > these can be handled automatically by the ports, many of them cannot. Assuming we deal with all the conflicting ports in the first round I don't fully buy this argument. If most people can simply upgrade the ports in question then "rm -rf /usr/X11RC && ln -s /usr/local /usr/X11R6" will take care of config files. That's admittedly a large assumption, but I don't think it's all that unreasonable. I think the argument for this change is that the use of X11BASE is pretty much random so it's no longer serving any useful purpose and the lack of consistency is a minor negative since you never know where an X related port will end up without reading the Makefile. -- Brooks --tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEt/bAXY6L6fI4GtQRAsTiAJ4wNOEAnQdna0Ja3ua2AS4FHZ/XtQCeOILI GuRqL2IoSNSVWW2FK/S8WUc= =wnwh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060714195545.GA78103>