Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 18:00:08 -0800 (PST) From: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/15545: New port: x11/xterm Message-ID: <200003300200.SAA03085@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/15545; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org>
To: Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de>
Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: ports/15545: New port: x11/xterm
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 19:59:31 -0600
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 02:06:06AM +0200, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> No, it doesn't.
> The port installs under ${LOCALBASE}, not ${X11BASE}.
Which is wrong. xterm is most definitely an X application, and
thus should go under ${X11BASE}.
But, for the sake of argument, let's say it goes into ${LOCALBASE}.
You then have the issue of depending how your ${PATH} is set up,
you could get the XFree86 xterm, or this one, with all the pitfalls
that causes.
You also end up creating ${LOCALBASE}/lib/X11/app-defaults which
as well as being somewhat unuseful (as you state), is also
not cleaned up on package deinstall. Another "black mark".
Finally, since the author is committed to getting this xterm into
the main XFree86 4.0 tree, it would also appear that this port
would be fairly short-lived.
So, as I see it, the advantages of having this available
in its current state are heavily outweighed by the disadvantages,
both in the port itself, and the way in which it pollutes
well-known namespace, particularly with something as ubiquitous
as "xterm".
Regards,
-aDe
--
Ade Lovett, Austin, TX.
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?200003300200.SAA03085>