X.org (experimental) ports moving to LOCALBASE soon

[Niclas Zeising]

On 1/9/07, Florent Thoumie <flz at freebsd.org> wrote:
> Niclas Zeising wrote:
> > On 1/9/07, Scott Robbins <scottro at nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 01:31:55AM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote:
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > Now that most ports are X11BASE-clean, I'm going to move X.org ports to
> >> > ${LOCALBASE} (as opposed to ${X11BASE}, where they live now). So expect
> >> > a commit talking about X.org PREFIX in the next few days.
> >> >
> >> > Actually, I advise using git-whatchanged and git-log before you make
> >> any
> >> > upgrade of your installed ports. The prefix change should need a
> >> > PORTREVISION bump but I won't do it (cause I'm too lazy), so you'll
> >> have
> >> > to type something like "portupgrade -R xorg\*".
> >> >
> >
> > [SNIP]
> >
> >>
> >> My own list--(it'd be great if other people give their opinions
> >> too--SirDice, if you're reading this, it's a start at our xorg-lite) :)
> >
> > Um, speaking of xorg-lite, I was thinking a bit about doing an
> > option-based xorg install, where you can choose what to install at
> > config-time via the ncurses-based framework.  The options will
> > propably mostly be related to drivers and maybe some apps in that
> > case.  The drawback is that we might get horrible Makefiles because of
> > all options and so on...  But anyway, what do you guys think?  I'm not
> > even sure if it's doable, it's just an idea.
>
> I was thinking of writing a default set of dependencoes and giving the
> opportunity to select the exact bits you want to install (like a USE
> flag). Assuming there's like ~300 ports, I'm not sure to go the OPTIONS way.
>
> --

Okay. I haven't investigated how to actually do it, I just thought it
was a good idea and wanted to see if anyone shared my oppinion before
continuing my thinking ;)
Regards!
//Niclas