tmclaugh at sdf.lonestar.org
Mon Jul 12 21:34:16 PDT 2004
On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 23:13, Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
> "Tom McLaughlin" <tmclaugh at sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 12:09, Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
> > > "Tom McLaughlin" <tmclaugh at sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 2004-07-11 at 17:04, Bruno Czekay wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > The first problem I see is you install the tightvnc package and it
> > > > creates bin/vncviewer which is a symlink to bin/vncviewer-tight and then
> > > > you install realvnc. I believe that if you overwrite the existing
> > > > symlink you will overwrite the symlink target. So by installing
> > > > realvnc's bin/vncviewer you will overwrite tightvnc's
> > > > bin/vncviewer-tight. I haven't tried this with any ports, simply
> > > > copying files around and copying to the symlink overwrote the target
> > > > file.
> > >
> > > a well done package could easily handle this issue by first removing the
> > > symlink and by installing its own one. a better way would be to install
> > > all of them using a separate name and to have a separate startup script
> > > for each of them w/ separate startup variables for the server side, and
> > > to have a wrapper for the client side as for mozilla.
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > Okay, would the wrapper script then be bin/vncviewer? Which package
> > owns the script and what happens if the owner package is removed, how
> > does that affect the other vnc versions installed?
> as the mozilla (well, netscape) wrapper does, vnc-wrapper. so, there is
> no problem whatever which vncviewer is installed. see, netscape-wrapper
> for details.
Okay, separate port for the wrapper, now I have you. :)
Just earlier I read on one of the gnome.org mailing lists they proposed
a VNC frontend, vino, for inclusion in Gnome 2.8. One of the notes
stated that if it is built with GNU TLS, support for encrypting the RFB
protocol stream will be built. The only VNC with this support is Real
VNC 4 or through a diff to the latest Real VNC release.
I took a look at doing a port for vino (being in a VNC sort of mood) and
ran into how I could explicitly set a dependency on vnc over tightvnc or
tridiavnc and make sure that a previously installed tight/tridiavnc
wasn't satisfying the dependency. Separating each port out with
different binary names would let me easily specify a specific VNC
dependency. Should maybe the vnc-wrapper have a dependency on one of
the VNCs (overridible through WITH knobs?) so by installing it and
creating a bin/vncviewer then their is assured to be a set of VNC
Last problem I can see is tridiavnc uses share/vnc as does vnc. The
tighvnc package fortunately uses share/tightvnc. The first two would
have to be reconciled. We also need to wait for the vnc maintainer to
chime in with what he thinks. The other two are unmaintained so they're
You've changed my mind on this. Thanks.
> > Personally I tend to be leery of anything fancy in ports to make them
> > play nice with others. That's my bias there. Thanks. :)
> Cyrille Lefevre.
More information about the freebsd-ports