Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:28:58 -0600 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> To: Florent Thoumie <flz@freebsd.org> Cc: Niclas Zeising <niclas.zeising@gmail.com>, freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Subject: Re: X.org (experimental) ports moving to LOCALBASE soon Message-ID: <20070109162858.GA88663@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <45A37979.4060102@FreeBSD.org> References: <45A2F08B.1010009@FreeBSD.org> <20070109020347.GB2599@mail.scottro.net> <bc292860701090223s24b7b638g1dd770838aed6033@mail.gmail.com> <45A37979.4060102@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 11:16:09AM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote:
> Niclas Zeising wrote:
> > On 1/9/07, Scott Robbins <scottro@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 01:31:55AM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote:
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > Now that most ports are X11BASE-clean, I'm going to move X.org ports to
> >> > ${LOCALBASE} (as opposed to ${X11BASE}, where they live now). So expect
> >> > a commit talking about X.org PREFIX in the next few days.
> >> >
> >> > Actually, I advise using git-whatchanged and git-log before you make
> >> any
> >> > upgrade of your installed ports. The prefix change should need a
> >> > PORTREVISION bump but I won't do it (cause I'm too lazy), so you'll
> >> have
> >> > to type something like "portupgrade -R xorg\*".
> >> >
> >
> > [SNIP]
> >
> >>
> >> My own list--(it'd be great if other people give their opinions
> >> too--SirDice, if you're reading this, it's a start at our xorg-lite) :)
> >
> > Um, speaking of xorg-lite, I was thinking a bit about doing an
> > option-based xorg install, where you can choose what to install at
> > config-time via the ncurses-based framework. The options will
> > propably mostly be related to drivers and maybe some apps in that
> > case. The drawback is that we might get horrible Makefiles because of
> > all options and so on... But anyway, what do you guys think? I'm not
> > even sure if it's doable, it's just an idea.
>
> I was thinking of writing a default set of dependencoes and giving the
> opportunity to select the exact bits you want to install (like a USE
> flag). Assuming there's like ~300 ports, I'm not sure to go the OPTIONS way.
If there are 300 ports, OPTIONS is absolutly not the way to go. The
dialog on the ghostscript ports is an example of how much this sucks.
-- Brooks
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFFo8LJXY6L6fI4GtQRAiArAJ9TlW4WlVvTERE6qzhce6FpEBhabQCdFJC8
3Anfd4T3e3qYWXp+04dHeNc=
=0IeG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070109162858.GA88663>