From owner-freebsd-ports  Sun Jun  4 00:07:17 1995
Return-Path: ports-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id AAA22789
          for ports-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 1995 00:07:17 -0700
Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.64.181])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id AAA22778
          for <FreeBSD-Ports@FreeBSD.org>; Sun, 4 Jun 1995 00:07:15 -0700
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.11/8.6.9) id AAA01735; Sun, 4 Jun 1995 00:06:29 -0700
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 1995 00:06:29 -0700
Message-Id: <199506040706.AAA01735@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
To: chuckr@Glue.umd.edu
CC: Lucas.James@ldjpc.apana.org.au, FreeBSD-Ports@FreeBSD.org
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950603175652.2881A-100000@espresso.eng.umd.edu> (message from Chuck Robey on Sat, 3 Jun 1995 18:00:57 -0400 (EDT))
Subject: Re: InterViews 3.2a diffs
From: asami@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: ports-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

 * I finally have a set of diffs working, based upon the version of 
 * InterViews from sgi.com, called 3.2a.tar.Z.  Since this is kinda late, I 
 * understand now that there are other patch files out there, so maybe you 
 * don't need it.  It builds both the shared and static libs, and installs 
 * to the right places, and even knows where XCONFIGDIR is.  Does anyone 
 * want it?  I can't make a port on my old machine, I'm not running current 
 * and the ports mechanism has changed (I understand) completely out of 
 * recognition from my version, which is 2.0R.

Lucas' version is committed (forgot to do it before...just committed
tonight, sorry :<) in the ports tree, but it only builds shared libs,
so I'm interested in the version that builds static libs too.

Also, what do you mean by "installs to the right places"?  If you mean
it goes to standard X11 directories (/usr/X11R6/{bin,lib,man}), I'm
interested in that too.  The default install rule puts everything in
/usr/local/interviews and I'm not very delighted with it, we need
hackery to make ldconfig happy (among other things).

I can't guarantee that I will incorporate your changes, time is tight
on my side as well as the release schedule, and I don't know if it
will compile fine on a -current machine as you tested it on 2.0R.  But
I'll at least promise to look at it if you send it to me within the
next 24 hours or so. ;)

Satoshi