From owner-freebsd-ports  Thu Jul 31 12:59:58 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA29361
          for ports-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 12:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.scsn.net (scsn.net [206.25.246.12])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA29354
          for <ports@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 12:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rhiannon.scsn.net ([208.133.153.156]) by mail.scsn.net
          (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-32322U5000L100S10000)
          with ESMTP id AAA152; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 15:50:49 -0400
Received: (from root@localhost)
	by rhiannon.scsn.net (8.8.6/8.8.5) id PAA01151;
	Thu, 31 Jul 1997 15:59:29 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <19970731155929.22909@scsn.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 15:59:29 -0400
From: "Donald J. Maddox" <root@scsn.net>
To: Satoshi Asami <asami@cs.berkeley.edu>
Cc: dmaddox@scsn.net, kingkaos@magicnet.net, ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: lesstif and ddd
Reply-To: dmaddox@scsn.net
References: <19970730210217.46402@scsn.net> <199707310641.XAA14649@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.79
In-Reply-To: <199707310641.XAA14649@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>; from Satoshi Asami on Wed, Jul 30, 1997 at 11:41:35PM -0700
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 30, 1997 at 11:41:35PM -0700, Satoshi Asami wrote:
>  * Look in /etc/make.conf and change the two lines that reference Motif
>  * to look something like this...
> 
> The first one is ok, but you most certainly don't need to uncomment
> the second line.  Note the "NOT" (in all caps even :).
> 
>  * HAVE_MOTIF=	yes
>  * #
>  * # If the default location of the Motif library (specified below) is NOT
>  * # appropriate for you, uncomment this and change it to the correct value.
>  * # If your motif is in ${X11BASE}/lib, you don't need to touch this line.
>  * #
>  * MOTIFLIB=	-L${X11BASE}/lib -lXm
> 
> Satoshi

    Hmmm, yeah, you're right...  You don't _need_ to uncomment that line.