Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:39:27 -0600 From: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Joe Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com>, <gnome@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Xscreensaver and GNOME Message-ID: <B890392F.621C%ade@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20020213131147.T28238-100000@master.gorean.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02/13/02 15:15, "Doug Barton" <DougB@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > I have no objection to a slave xscreensaver-gnome port. My only > criteria is that by default, users who don't have gnome that build > ports/x11/xscreensaver (or install the package) don't get gnome bits. That is absolutely the case. If you don't have GNOME bits installed and/or the end-user has defined WITHOUT_GNOME somewhere, no GNOME will be pulled in whatsoever, just the gtk stuff and gle/Mesa/libxml. > BTW, one edge case occurs to me.... what will happen after you > guys are done working on this if a user who does not have gnome installs > xscreensaver, then down the road installs gnome, then down the road > pkg_delete's one thing or the other? As Jeremy has mentioned, Bad Stuff[tm] will happen here, as chunks of (still installed) packages get bits removed from them under their feet. This is a deficiency of the ports system itself, just as is the lack of true versioning dependency support. There are some edge cases, such as this type, which will result in a mess, but I believe the number of people likely to do this to be within tolerances, given the very real packaging problem we have right now which hits everyone doing an install/deinstall of anything involving gnomecontrolcenter and xscreensaver. -aDe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-gnome" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B890392F.621C%ade>