From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Mar 30 5:40: 5 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62ED437B7F3 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 05:40:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id FAA30671; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 05:40:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 05:40:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200003301340.FAA30671@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Christian Weisgerber Subject: Re: ports/15545: New port: x11/xterm Reply-To: Christian Weisgerber Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR ports/15545; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Christian Weisgerber To: Ade Lovett Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/15545: New port: x11/xterm Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 12:32:04 +0200 Ade Lovett: > > The port installs under ${LOCALBASE}, not ${X11BASE}. > > Which is wrong. xterm is most definitely an X application, and > thus should go under ${X11BASE}. This is news to me. I've been made to believe that installing ports under ${X11BASE} is a side effect if they're built with imake, and since this can't be fixed, it has become accepted practice but not a feature in its own right. > 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. Yes. I don't perceive this as a great problem. What do you suggest? Adding a MESSAGE to that purpose, or entirely renaming this xterm (which opens up a new can of worms)? Obviously it would be nicer if we could just substitute XFree86's stock xterm with the new one, but the existing package system doesn't allow this. > 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". What do you mean, "not cleaned up on package deinstall"? The files are in the PLIST and will be removed on deinstall. I'm under the impression that it is common practice for ports not to try to remove directories that they don't use exclusively (which is uncertain for the case above), but adding two @dirrm's to the PLIST is hardly an obstacle. > 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. Quite to the contrary. The port will be frequently updated. New versions of xterm are released more frequently than XFree86 is. The main purpose of this port is to provide convenient and package-clean access to the latest versions of xterm between XFree86 releases. (At this time it also provides a much improved xterm to people who choose to remain with XFree86 3.3.6 because 4.0 doesn't support their graphics hardware, as well as an important bug fix over the xterm shipped with XFree86 4.0. As far as I'm concerned, this proves the usefulness of the port.) -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message