Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:31:44 -0400 From: Steven Kreuzer <skreuzer@exit2shell.com> To: perryh@pluto.rain.com Cc: ports@freebsd.org, 1cynthia2flynn3@telus.net, rizzo@iet.unipi.it, gary.jennejohn@freenet.de Subject: Re: mtools vs X11 (Re: FreeBSD Port: syslinux-3.72) Message-ID: <830D8719-1F55-4BE7-B6D5-3C711F2D57C1@exit2shell.com> In-Reply-To: <49c1fd04.Ul73kIip/JpE7k7C%perryh@pluto.rain.com> References: <49C00745.1050607@telus.net> <20090318001138.GF95451@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <20090318113023.7bc51ef4@ernst.jennejohn.org> <49c1fd04.Ul73kIip/JpE7k7C%perryh@pluto.rain.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 19, 2009, at 4:06 AM, perryh@pluto.rain.com wrote: > Gary Jennejohn <gary.jennejohn@freenet.de> wrote: >> Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> wrote: >>> ... Cynthia Flynn wrote: >> [snip - syslinux pulls in too much X11 stuff] >>> I think the extra dependencies that you find listed for syslinux: >>> [snip] >>> come directly from mtools ... >> >> Yeah. It looks like mtools uses X11 by default, which IMHO is >> incorrect. Instead it should have an option to turn X11 _on_, >> rather than one for turning it _off_, as it currently does. > > IMO it is a POLA violation for mtools to depend on X11 *at all*. > > Instead of having an option, maybe the port should be split so that > mtools itself just provides the code to access FAT filesystems, and > (say) mtools-gui does the fancy display stuff. mtools already supports WITHOUT_X11 so if you don't want the GUI stuff, you can build the port without it. Personally, I think it makes more sense for mtools to be the full and complete representation of the actual program. If you would like to create a new port and call it mtools-without-gui and strip out all the X11 stuff, similar to cvsup and cvsup-without-gui, I say go for it. -- Steven Kreuzer http://www.exit2shell.com/~skreuzer
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?830D8719-1F55-4BE7-B6D5-3C711F2D57C1>