Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:44:11 +0200 (EET) From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: keichii@peorth.iteration.net Cc: sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG (Maxim Sobolev), jmz@FreeBSD.ORG (Jean-Marc Zucconi), ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/x11/XFree86-4 Makefile distinfo pkg-plistpkg-plist.alpha pkg-plist.pc98 ports/x11/XFree86-4/files patch-dp Message-ID: <200103192244.f2JMiG527521@vic.sabbo.net> In-Reply-To: <20010319160401.A14817@peorth.iteration.net> from "Michael C . Wu" at Mar 19, 2001 04:04:01 PM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 09:10:41PM +0200, Maxim Sobolev scribbled: > | Jean-Marc Zucconi wrote: > | > >>>>> Maxim Sobolev writes: > | > > Jean-Marc Zucconi wrote: > | > The situation is different from the 4.0.2 version. At this time the > | > build of freetype had to be done manually. This is no more the case > | > and if you install binaries from xfree86.org you will have freetype > | > installed. Freetype can be disabled (like many other build options) > | > and I will add this option in the configure script, but the default > | > will be to install freetype, because the port tries to follow the > | > official distribution. > | > | Well, while I understand your desire to follow official distribution and motivation > | of XFree86 developers (they want to ensure that XFree can be compiled just OOB), > | but our port system has a dependency system in place to ensure that the all pieces > | are glued together nicely, so it is not very wise to not use it and create > | namespace conflict between XFree86 and freetype2. Next time they would add the > > What conflict? I am certain that the XFree86 developers will solve > any namespace conflict that you can think of. > Just because we have a namespace conflict with something else should > not prevent the introduction of a new feature. Nobody here talks about disabling features. We have freetype2 port, so XFree86 should link with it and avoid rolling its own version of freetype2 library. Just because XFree folks included freetype2 into distribution for users' convinience doesn't mean that we shall accept that as is. > | whole linux kernel into distribution, so what? > > Is this a valid argument? :) Have you heard about hyperbole? [1] > | I believe that it is a good tradition of FreeBSD to change layout of things to make > | them more proper from our point of view, even if it comes as extra cost. There are > | many examples gtk12/glib12, gnome, sdl/sdl-devel etc. and I do not see why XFree86 > | should be a "special case". > > No, the expected behavior of users from other systems who install > XF86-4 will be that it has freetype2 by default. Well, it is doens't really differ from the situation when XFree86 depends on print/freetype2 port - you do ``cd /usr/ports/x11/XFree86-4 ; make install'' and have freetype2 library + XFree86 installed automatically. > I think that JMZ is doing this correctly. I think that you do not understand the problems created by the fact that there is two ports that install freetype2 library. -Maxim [1] http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/0/0,5716,42730+1+41790,00.html?query=hyperbole To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200103192244.f2JMiG527521>