Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 13:08:38 -0700 From: Don whY <Don.whY@gmx.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Xorg for client-only support Message-ID: <55A2C946.9010708@gmx.com> In-Reply-To: <4777726.x7gaKDivgh@desk8.phess.net> References: <559EDB56.70808@gmx.com> <2863155.VvqRCPmh7x@desk8.phess.net> <55A1DD4F.1050507@gmx.com> <4777726.x7gaKDivgh@desk8.phess.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7/11/2015 11:21 PM, Patrick Hess wrote: > Don whY wrote: >> On 7/10/2015 9:41 AM, Patrick Hess wrote: >>> Don whY wrote: >>>> For *headless* devices (i.e., no point in having a real *server*!), >>>> are there significant portions of xorg that I can omit? Or, is it >>>> easier to build and install it all and remove the unnecessary cruft, >>>> later? >>> >>> Since you don't need the server portions, I don't really see a reason >>> why you would want to worry about installing any X.org ports by hand. >> >> Not sure what you mean "by hand"; if "build from scratch", that's >> just the way I've done things for the past 20+ years... > > Now I'm not so sure any more what you mean by "build from scratch". > I was assuming that you were using the FreeBSD ports system, in which > case I wouldn't bother to explicitly install any X libraries, like so: > > make -C /usr/ports/x11/libX11 install && > make -C /usr/ports/x11/libXext install && > make -C /usr/ports/x11-toolkits/libXt install && > [...] Yes. Though if any of the above had dependencies, I would first "manually" make those. I.e., I don't like relying on too much magic as too many details get hidden that I might want to examine and opt for a different approach. E.g., something starts to drag in a new version of perl and I give serious thought to whether I really *want* that thing! > Instead, I would just install the actual applications I wanted to run > on that machine and have the above libraries be installed by the ports > system automatically should one of those applications need them. > > Of course, if you were building from source without using the ports system, > you'd have to resolve all of these dependency issues yourself. I don't see > a compelling reason why you would want to take that route, though. > >>> Just installing the applications you want to use should automatically >>> pull in the X.org dependencies that are actually required by these >>> applications. >> >> Are the client dependencies that fine-grained? I.e., they don't just drag >> The Kitchen Sink in? > > I'd say that most ports are pretty good at specifying only the minimum > set of dependencies that are actually required by the port. > > Just off the top of my head, the one counter example that comes to my > mind is x11/lumina, which has a dependency on x11/xorg, a metaport for > the *entire* X.org distribution. I didn't have the time to take a closer > look at that port just yet, but that feels like overkill to me. It's only natural to think "Oh, this relies on X..." and casually (unfortunately) drag in more dependencies than may be required. Likewise, default configuration choices may drag in other ports that *I* might not be interested in. >>> This will prevent any unnecessary parts, like server >>> components and video drivers, from being installed on your system >>> in the first place. >> >> I was hoping for a port akin to "xorg-clients". But, i should be able >> to hack one together based on your above comment. > > x11/xorg-libraries seems to bundle a fair amount of client libraries. > That being said, I wouldn't bother about it either. Should one of the > applications you are to install require x11/xorg-libraries, the ports > system will automatically install it for you anyway. I'll have to start looking at each client in detail and see what the "cost" (dependencies) of each will be. Some may prove not to be worth the extra effort/resources.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?55A2C946.9010708>