Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 23:48:34 +0930 (CST) From: "Daniel O'Connor" <darius@dons.net.au> To: Alexander Langer <alex@big.endian.de> Cc: glenngombert@zdnetonebox.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, Jordan Hubbard <jkh@FreeBSD.ORG>, "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au>, Robert Withrow <bwithrow@nortelnetworks.com> Subject: Re: Version of XFree86 in FreeBSD Release 4.4 Message-ID: <XFMail.20010918234834.darius@dons.net.au> In-Reply-To: <20010918160602.B90244@fump.kawo2.rwth-aachen.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 18-Sep-2001 Alexander Langer wrote: > Thus spake Robert Withrow (bwithrow@nortelnetworks.com): > > > I know it is slimy, but couldn't there be a dummy "port" just > > called "XFree86" that is what most other ports depend on? The minority > > of ports that actually care what version of X is installed could always > > use the version-specific names... > > Would be nice if we had a package system that lets you just install > - let me call them - "features", such as a "XFree86" feature, other > ports could depend on. Multiple packages could supply this feature > then and ports could also say if they depend on a specific version. Yes, I suspect the answer is along the lines of 'yes that's coming' :) The previous suggestion (have a generic XFree86 port) is a) hacky, but b) workable in the current package framework I suspect.. Probably have to trap a port guru and subject them to torture before it got implemented though ;) --- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20010918234834.darius>