Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 09:08:02 +0300 (EEST) From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@mail-in.net> To: mwm@mired.org Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: WITHOUT_X vs. WITHOUT_X11 vs. NO_X Message-ID: <200106020608.f52680o49768@mail.uic-in.net> In-Reply-To: <15127.62143.888966.869172@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:53:35 -0500, Mike Meyer wrote: > Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG> types: > > Mike Meyer wrote: > > > Since WITHOUT_X has already been documented, fixing the ports that > > > used one of the other variables to use that one relatively soon would > > > be a good thing. Unless there's a good reason to use one of the other > > > two, that is. > > I'm voting for WITHOUT_X11 - it is unlikely that we will see X12 in a foreseable > > future, so why to bother? > > If we never see X12, there's no reason to use either one. On the off > chance that we do, we'll have problems. Why ask for trouble? If we ever see X12, it will unlikely to be compatible with X11 anyway, so we will need WITHOUT_X12 etc. At the same time, we have X11BASE, so little consistency certainly won't hurt. -Maxim 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?200106020608.f52680o49768>