adamw at FreeBSD.org
Fri Apr 22 15:07:00 PDT 2005
Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 16:42:31 -0500, Danny Pansters <danny at ricin.com> wrote:
>> On Friday 22 April 2005 20:21, Gary Kline wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 01:01:30PM -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote:
>>> > You should forward this information to the freebsd-ports list.
>>> I'm sure
>>> > they'd like to know this, because it's abnormal design. The conf file
>>> > *should* be in /usr/local/etc and there *should* be a pkg-message file
>>> > that tells the installer what to do post-install.
>>> At least a symlink to /usr/local/etc, and the post-install note.
>>> This brings up the qauestion of the Powers-that-Be creating
>>> symlinks to /etc/local (as a min) and /etc/X11R6. (Should *ANY*
>>> non-system GUI have its conf in /etc/X11R6/etc? ... [*mumble*])
>> No, and in fact it would be better if /usr/X11R6 were a hard link
>> to /usr/local, but this never happened. The /usr/X11R6 came into life
>> of X IIRC and then got adapted by some X apps and then by gnome. So
>> now we're
>> stuck with two "3rd party software" trees/prefixes.
> I am hoping to get all GNOME stuff move in LOCALBASE someday when I
> have time. FreeBSD needs to remove one prefix either (LOCALBASE or
> X11BASE) to have a prefix.
MPlayer doesn't need X. It can run just fine in an X-less environment.
Same with SDL. Things that _require_ X live in /usr/X11R6. Except for
KDE, which claims that they alone are interpreting hier(7) correctly and
*every single other X app in the entire ports tree* is wrong. Also OOo,
but those poor guys have enough to deal with without trying to force a
Personally, I'd love to see /usr/X11R6 folded into /usr/local, but until
then, I think it's nothing short of retarded for apps to install into
unusual locations to prove a point.
adamw at magnesium.net || adamw at FreeBSD.org
adamw at vectors.cx || adamw at gnome.org
More information about the freebsd-questions