From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 14 20:13:08 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2644716A4DD for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:13:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1CC8943D46 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:13:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 21761 invoked by uid 399); 14 Jul 2006 20:13:06 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.7?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Jul 2006 20:13:06 -0000 Message-ID: <44B7FAD0.6040602@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:13:04 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brooks Davis References: <200607130024.18047.dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> <44B740A5.6050709@FreeBSD.org> <200607141300.43547.dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> <44B7F182.8080009@FreeBSD.org> <20060714195545.GA78103@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <20060714195545.GA78103@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Dejan Lesjak , freebsd-x11@freebsd.org, Maxim Sobolev Subject: Re: RFC: Merging X11BASE to LOCALBASE X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:13:08 -0000 Brooks Davis wrote: > Assuming we deal with all the conflicting ports in the first round > I don't fully buy this argument. If most people can simply upgrade > the ports in question then "rm -rf /usr/X11RC && ln -s /usr/local > /usr/X11R6" will take care of config files. That's admittedly a large > assumption, but I don't think it's all that unreasonable. That might add confusion for ports that are still have hidden dependencies on /usr/X11R6, and also won't work at all if the decision is made to keep the xorg/XFree bits in that directory. > I think the argument for this change is that the use of X11BASE is > pretty much random so it's no longer serving any useful purpose and the > lack of consistency is a minor negative since you never know where an X > related port will end up without reading the Makefile. In my mind that's a good argument for making and enforcing consistent policies, not for changing the defaults. But reasonable minds can differ on this issue. Like I said, my mind is not made up yet one way or another, but I have yet to see a very good reason for making the change. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection