Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:05:47 +0000 From: Florent Thoumie <flz@FreeBSD.org> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: Niclas Zeising <niclas.zeising@gmail.com>, freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Subject: Re: X.org (experimental) ports moving to LOCALBASE soon Message-ID: <45A3CB6B.9060703@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20070109162858.GA88663@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <45A2F08B.1010009@FreeBSD.org> <20070109020347.GB2599@mail.scottro.net> <bc292860701090223s24b7b638g1dd770838aed6033@mail.gmail.com> <45A37979.4060102@FreeBSD.org> <20070109162858.GA88663@lor.one-eyed-alien.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
Brooks Davis wrote:
> 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.
Actually, it will probably be per-metaport, so it's more in the likes of
50/60 selectable entries (which still is a no-no).
--
Florent Thoumie
flz@FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD Committer
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFo8tyMxEkbVFH3PQRCojxAJ0c9Rbfs2FNBpvG95Mo3OHfFLE4NQCfSWei
0CiPO9Pdys02RMclPil5XNE=
=Jov7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45A3CB6B.9060703>