From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 24 22:36:04 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0327816A4CE; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 22:36:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from blues.jpj.net (blues.jpj.net [208.210.80.156]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3101C43D5A; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 22:36:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from trevor@jpj.net) Received: from blues.jpj.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blues.jpj.net (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iBOMa0Ja043313; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 17:36:00 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from trevor@jpj.net) Received: from localhost (trevor@localhost)iBOMZsmP043300; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 17:36:00 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: blues.jpj.net: trevor owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 17:35:54 -0500 (EST) From: Trevor Johnson To: Alexander Leidinger In-Reply-To: <20041224181509.431b3df7@Magellan.Leidinger.net> Message-ID: <20041224165045.K40731@blues.jpj.net> References: <200412220036.iBM0aWNf091183@repoman.freebsd.org> <20041224181509.431b3df7@Magellan.Leidinger.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.48 on 127.0.0.1 cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/x11/linux-XFree86-libs Makefile X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 22:36:04 -0000 Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Trevor Johnson wrote: > > > trevor 2004-12-22 00:36:32 UTC > > > > FreeBSD ports repository > > > > Modified files: > > x11/linux-XFree86-libs Makefile > > Log: > > This works with linux_base-rh-9 and linux_base-suse-9.1 as well as > > linux_base-8. > > I'm not sure removing the dependency on any linux_base is the right > thing to do. Additionally I think we shouldn't support more than one > linux_base. It's fine if it works with more than one linux_base, but we > can't guarantee it. I made sure that it works with those three. I designed them from the get-go to work with it. If they actually do not, kindly report the bug. Traditionally we've had multiple linux_base ports. I have no problem with that tradition--it's not in our power to unify all the Linux distributions, nor for that matter all the X11 distributions! > My suggestion is: let it depend upon the default linux_base by default > (my patchset takes care of this). After 4.11 is out the door, let's > update the default linux_base to a recent one, remove all > obsolete/outdated/forbidden linux_base ports, get everything into good > shape and think about how to allow non-default linux_base ports to work > with everything (e.g. a patch for bsd.port.mk which modifies the > USE_LINUX code to use an already installed linux_base (with a warning > that we don't guarantee anything) or to install a predefined one, like > we did with the X_WINDOW_SYSTEM part of bsd.port.mk). The patch you sent me would have added a dependency on this port to the Linux ports which need X11 (presently, I ask users to install this port manually). I don't see how my commit conflicts with the patch you sent me. Does this commit create an actual problem? -- Trevor Johnson