ports/81440: Major improvements to x11-wm/fvwm2-devel port

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 03:28:20AM -0400, Parv wrote:
> in message <20050525044038.GB37559 at FreeBSD.org>, wrote Alexey
> Dokuchaev thusly...
> >
> > On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 10:00:58PM -0400, Parv wrote:
> > > 
> > > General *ARGH! CARP!* for the port being OPTION-ified.
> > 
> > I'm not sure I understand this assessment correctly. :-)
> 
> Of course not, for "CRAP" is not "CARP".

Uhm, what is wrong with OPTIONS?  it is general tendency to
OPTION'ize ports these days.  It's far more convenient for user
than digging though Makefile to see that kbobs are there.  Plus,
it retains your prefered configuration during upgrades.

> 
> 
> > > More importantly, to the PR originator, why "WITHOUT_XINERAMA
> > > ... is of little use"?  Perhaps not to you, but i do use it.
> > 
> > So, it's like you have dual-head setup, but don't want to use it
> > for FVWM?  In this case, I can rework my patches.
> 
> Or, since i have only one monitor, any application that i use rather
> not carry around support for more than one monitor.

Then it does not really tolerate, since it does not affect your work
in any noticible way.  Lots of applications support Xinerama by default
these days, it does not require any additinoal libraries/dependencies,
and some day you actualyl might get dual-head setup.  :-)

./danfe