RFC: Merging X11BASE to LOCALBASE

[Brooks Davis]

On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 05:34:22PM -0500, John Merryweather Cooper wrote:
> Dejan Lesjak wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >There were a couple of debates already concerning /usr/X11R6 as prefix for 
> >X11 ports and a bunch of other ports that currently by default install 
> >there. Quite some people were, when creating a new port that depends on 
> >X11, wandering whether to put it in X11BASE or LOCALBASE. More than once a 
> >question of whether the prefix /usr/X11R6 should be just dropped or at 
> >least only retained for core X11 distribution. With the upcoming X.org 7.x 
> >ports there is perhaps the opportunity to do the prefix merger along that.
> >Moving X11 prefix to LOCALBASE would simplify above dilemma. It would be 
> >also more similar to where linux distributions are going (at least Gentoo, 
> >Debian and Fedora deprecated /usr/X11R6 in favour of /usr which, while 
> >not /usr/local is the location of where all packages install - depending 
> >on X11 or not). If I remember correctly from previous discussions, it 
> >would be more convenient to people with separate mounts for installed 
> >packages as well. /usr/local is also the default value for --prefix 
> >configure option for X.org packages.
> >So it is general intention to go with /usr/local or rather ${LOCALBASE} as 
> >prefix for X11 ports. If anyone feels that this is horribly wrong, please 
> >speak up.
> >
> >On behalf of x11 team,
> >Dejan
> >  
> What impact (if any) would the doubling or tripling of the number of 
> files in ./bin have on searching along PATH? Would we be shooting 
> ourselves in the foot if we did this?

Since /usr/X11R6/bin is already in the default path I don't see how
it would make any difference.

-- Brooks
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-x11/attachments/20060712/27f908b4/attachment.pgp