From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 28 09:00:02 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6270916A4B3 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2003 09:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from falcon.midgard.homeip.net (h76n3fls24o1048.bredband.comhem.se [213.67.148.76]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 250BE44035 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2003 09:00:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ertr1013@student.uu.se) Received: (qmail 94293 invoked by uid 1001); 28 Sep 2003 15:59:57 -0000 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 17:59:57 +0200 From: Erik Trulsson To: "Pedro F. Giffuni" Message-ID: <20030928155956.GA89851@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> Mail-Followup-To: "Pedro F. Giffuni" , freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org References: <20030928071402.GA72957@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> <20030928153710.81198.qmail@web13407.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030928153710.81198.qmail@web13407.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: xview-clients port and the bento log X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 16:00:02 -0000 On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 08:37:10AM -0700, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: > I see... (I did the last "cleaning" on that port years ago) Both the xview and xview-clients ports are showing their age somewhat. (The xview* source itself is even older and dustier and hasn't been changed for nearly a decade, but updating that to modern coding standards seems like a lot of work.) > > Your patch is an option, another one is merging xview-clients into xview. I > think the best would be to do something like ghostscript-x11 does, merge the > xview-clients patches into the xview port and add the Clients target from the > xview-clients port. Yes, that would probably be the best solution. My patch is more of a temporary workaround that can be used until somebody comes up with a proper fix. There can't be too many people around who use the xview port without also using the xview-clients port so merging the ports sounds like a good idea. > > Yeah, it's quite a job and it has to be done with some care. Indeed. I am not volunteering. :-) At least for the near future I don't have the time ncecessary to do it. -- Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se