Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:56:05 -0200 From: "Carlos A. M. dos Santos" <unixmania@gmail.com> To: Robert Noland <rnoland@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/137373: x11/libX11: make dependance on x11/libxcb Message-ID: <e71790db0912201656u7cf2fc99tcaabeb406f283b11@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1261317544.2315.52.camel@balrog.2hip.net> References: <200912192220.nBJMK8xo025223@freefall.freebsd.org> <1261278141.2315.47.camel@balrog.2hip.net> <e71790db0912191906j2f830ed0s26d8224064cf810b@mail.gmail.com> <200912201011.20455.makc@issp.ac.ru> <1261317544.2315.52.camel@balrog.2hip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Robert Noland <rnoland@freebsd.org> wrote= : > On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 10:11 +0300, Max Brazhnikov wrote: >> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:06:37 -0200, Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote: >> > On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 1:02 AM, Robert Noland <rnoland@freebsd.org> w= rote: >> > > On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 00:30 -0200, Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote: >> > >> > .... >> > >> > >> Is it acceptable a patch allowing to diable XCB without a menu? The >> > >> default behavior is kept but users can put "WITHOUT_XCB=3Dtrue" in >> > >> /etc/make.conf, ensuring that all ports are built the same way. >> > > >> > > If it is defined as a KNOB and all of the ports override the option = if >> > > the KNOB is set, then yes I'm ok with it. =A0I just don't want an op= tion, >> > > since it makes foot shooting easier. >> > > >> > > robert. >> > >> > Ok, I will submit a followup with an new patch. >> >> As KDE (and several multimedia ports) maintainer I object to having xcb = knob >> in x11 ports. Turning it off will break plist and/or build of these port= s, >> they does require libx11 compiled with xcb support. > > Well, I don't get why anyone would not want it. =A0I have had discussions > with other Xorg folk about making it mandatory for X. Remember that not everybody wants X for running GNOME or KDE. Think about appliances and kiosks where small footprint counts more than fancy functionality or even performance. That's what I'm attempting to do here. I could maintain a private set of customized ports - and have been doing this, to some extent - but it is much better to put the options in the regular ports. Also, I'm not the only one interested on such thing. Look at x11/xorg-minimal, for instance.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e71790db0912201656u7cf2fc99tcaabeb406f283b11>