Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 12:22:08 -0700 (PDT) From: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi Asami) To: hoek@hwcn.org Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/games/xzip Makefile Message-ID: <199807031922.MAA01989@bubble.didi.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980701221003.19131A-100000@james.hwcn.org> (message from Tim Vanderhoek on Wed, 1 Jul 1998 22:15:33 -0400 (EDT))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* > Take out "x11" from category. * * Hmm... Looking over the commit logs, I see you've been doing * this for a while. Like what, 3 years? :) * There are still an awful lot of ports that have x11 as a * secondary category, however, and it's rather useful for * identifying which ones use x11... What's the current policy on * x11 as a secondary category? There is no distinction between primary or secondary categories. "x11" has always been for ports that pertain to the window system itself (widget sets, font utilities, window managers, etc.). * Further, are you planning to commit your patch to add fake X * dependencies in the next round of "commits to bsd.port.mk"? I'd like to see some more comments, but I'm leaning towards it. One potential sticking point is that if sysinstall isn't modified to get pkg info installed when X libraries is installed from the regular XFree86 distribution, package users will see a lot of "XFree86-3.3.2: package not found" type of warnings, but I guess that's no big deal. * FWIW, I rather liked the "x11 as a secondary category for all * ports depending on X, except for Tk?? ports which have that as * secondary category instead". The problem is that such category will be virtually useless except to a select few, and make it impossible to find X utilities (as opposed to applications). :< Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199807031922.MAA01989>