LOCALBASE vs. X11BASE (head to head deathmatch!)

[Stanislav Sedov]

On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 23:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
Doug Barton <dougb at FreeBSD.org> mentioned:

> This has been long, so if you're still reading, thanks! :) I hope that it's 
> useful, and that we can continue having a rational discussion about the pros 
> and cons of the various alternatives.

I think it would be a good solution. I see no reason to have separate
directories for X- and not-X related ports.

Furthermore, it will reduce the number of %%X11BASE%%-like substitutions
in ports distfiles to work correctly, and number of mtree files we
should respect.

I've spent a long time fixing ports to respect X11BASE/LOCALBASE/CFLAGS/
PREFIX etc, and it seems, unfortunately, that only a little number of
them honor them properly (at least almost all ruby ports don't because of
bsd.ruby.mk). It seems to be a very tedious and monotonic work. :-(
Thus, reducing number of variables to respect should simplify the task.

-- 
Stanislav Sedov         MBSD labs, Inc.         <ssedov at mbsd.msk.ru>
Россия, Москва         http://mbsd.msk.ru

--------------------------------------------------------------------
If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.  -- A. Einstein
--------------------------------------------------------------------
PGP fingerprint:  F21E D6CC 5626 9609 6CE2  A385 2BF5 5993 EB26 9581
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20060806/af23f9b7/signature.pgp