tmclaugh at sdf.lonestar.org
Sun Jul 11 16:16:43 PDT 2004
On Sun, 2004-07-11 at 17:04, Bruno Czekay wrote:
> I wanted to make some tests between (Real) VNC, TightVNC and TridiaVNC
> servers (run on FreeBSD) against their clients, installed both on
> FreeBSD and Windows. But every package installs itself as Xvnc,
> vncserver, vncviever etc. Wouldn't it be more useful, if enhanced
> versions installed themselves as Xvnc-tight and Xvnc-tridia?
> I do understand, that not many people install all those packages, and
> maybe they want to have just 'vncserver' on their systems, not
> 'vncserver-some-extra-crap'. In this case, Makefile for enhanced version
> can test, if there exist "official" vnc binary - if not, enhanced
> version is symlinked to it.
> This would also require patching Xvnc (as this a perl script). If you
> consider it useful, I can send appropriate patches.
> Best regards
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
The second problem I see is which package owns bin/vncviewer? Both
would own bin/vncviewer according to their package lists and both would
want to remove the file. You could do away with the symlink and have
tightvnc simply install just bin/vncviewer-tight but that creates a
problem for frontends like tsclient which look for a vncviewer binary.
Now someone is forced to install realvnc to use tsclient when they
already have tightvnc.
I think leaving them the way they are is probably the best way to go.
More information about the freebsd-ports