RFC: Merging X11BASE to LOCALBASE

[Joe Marcus Clarke]

On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 23:58 -0700, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> What's the gain? Transition will be a really big PITA for most existing 
> users. Everybody who would be trying to install a KDE/GNOME or even a 
> general X11 port after a switchover still having all X11 bits in 
> /usr/X11R6 is likely to be screwed on build time, due to mismatching 
> includes/libraries search paths. And I am not even telling about 
> run-time problems with datafiles in KDE/GNOME.
> 
> The only way to handle such a merge for ordinary Joe User would be to 
> remove all X11 bits and pieces and compile/install everything from 
> scratch. And despite what X11 maintainers may believe (due to the nature 
> of their position they 
> compile/install/remove/compile/install/remove/.../ad infinite all X11 
> bits and pieces every day), ordinary Joe User doesn't like such gross 
> upgrades, since even with the best packaging system in the world 
> virtually any such upgrade will bring new unanticipated problems to the 
> system that otherwise has been working before upgrade just fine.
> 
> Therefore, I doubt that such "pull the trigger" approach is really going 
> to work in this case. Some more gradual course is in due: with X11R6 
> being banned as a target for a new ports, with new GNOME version moving 
> to the LOCALBASE and so on.

We (the FreeBSD GNOME Team) are discussing such an approach for the
upcoming GNOME 2.16 release.  We will be transitioning to LOCALBASE
following the 2.15.4 development release.

Joe

> 
> -Maxim
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
> 
-- 
PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-x11/attachments/20060714/1840cc82/attachment.pgp