pfgshield-freebsd at yahoo.com pfgshield-freebsd at yahoo.com
Fri Jul 14 14:09:37 UTC 2006


--- Dejan Lesjak <dejan.lesjak at ijs.si> ha scritto: 

> On Friday 14 July 2006 01:59, pfgshield-freebsd at yahoo.com wrote:
> > Hi;
> >
> > Just here mumbling...
> >
> > It would be interesting to set
> >
> > X11BASE=/usr/X11     when using XFree86 and
> > X11BASE=${LOCALBASE} when using XOrg.
> >
> > Not only due to historical consistency (/usr/X11 is the path recommended in
> > XFree86 manpages), but as a way to be able to use XFree86 and keep the
> > system somewhat cleaner.
> Well, I was planing XFree86 would move to LOCALBASE as well - if it doesn't, 
> ports depending on X11 would have to special case XFree86 libraries and 
> includes and such, which would make system a bit less clean. Why do you think

Hmm.. there should be no need to have special cases for ports that properly
respect X11BASE. Ports that don't respect X11BASE (those that have /usr/X11R6
hard coded) should be cleaned/fixed anyways.

> using /usr/X11 would make things cleaner?

I haven't checked lately but XFree86 and XOrg are currently in conflict aren't
they? One has to deinstall and rebuild all the packages built with XOrg and
start a fresh build to use XFree86. Having XFree86 on it's own prefix would
avoid the problem of having packages built with the wrong version of X and it
also make an eventual clean up easier.

I think the user perceived default wouldn't change, with most people using XOrg
in LOCALBASE, and some people using XFree86 in X11BASE. Of course if eventually
X11BASE disappears is another matter, but at least for backwards compatibility
(4.x?) it's good to have it for a while. 

just my 0.02$


Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! 

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list