From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Dec 19 1:25:50 2000 From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 19 01:25:48 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 928AE37B400; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 01:25:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA00971; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:25:46 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from des@ofug.org) Sender: des@ofug.org X-URL: http://www.ofug.org/~des/ X-Disclaimer: The views expressed in this message do not necessarily coincide with those of any organisation or company with which I am or have been affiliated. To: Ade Lovett Cc: jmz@FreeBSD.org, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: XFree86-4 Port References: <20001217004251.A47353@external.org> <20001218134601.A5634@FreeBSD.org> From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 19 Dec 2000 10:25:46 +0100 In-Reply-To: Ade Lovett's message of "Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:46:01 -0600" Message-ID: Lines: 20 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Ade Lovett writes: > The real solution is for x11/XFree86-4 to be completely gutted and > turned into a meta-port, depending on all of the other XFree86-4 > components. No. > This was the original goal, and I have no idea (nor does it cease > to amaze me) why it hasn't been done. Because until XFree86 get a grip and start distributing their sources in a more reasonable format, each of the subports would need to unpack the entire 200-megabyte XFree86 source code and build significant portions of it - and if you have five subports, you end up with five copies of the source code (totalling one gigabyte!) plus assorted binaries before you get the chance to 'make clean'. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message