Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:13:04 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, freebsd-x11@freebsd.org, Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: Merging X11BASE to LOCALBASE Message-ID: <44B7FAD0.6040602@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20060714195545.GA78103@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <200607130024.18047.dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> <44B740A5.6050709@FreeBSD.org> <200607141300.43547.dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> <44B7F182.8080009@FreeBSD.org> <20060714195545.GA78103@lor.one-eyed-alien.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brooks Davis wrote:
> 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.
That might add confusion for ports that are still have hidden dependencies
on /usr/X11R6, and also won't work at all if the decision is made to keep
the xorg/XFree bits in that directory.
> 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.
In my mind that's a good argument for making and enforcing consistent
policies, not for changing the defaults. But reasonable minds can differ on
this issue. Like I said, my mind is not made up yet one way or another, but
I have yet to see a very good reason for making the change.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44B7FAD0.6040602>