From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 19 10:03:10 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 648311065672; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:03:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com (mail-iy0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA81D8FC15; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:03:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iadj38 with SMTP id j38so6364618iad.13 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 02:03:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=OvgefOMtwsIxrB0wH1oCfs862/c3oZ+wQ/ceK0tUTJ8=; b=MBK/wUvm8kY7IWtyAXFwp5hY/T1l1dVzPdkHQ9faZi6KJz9PxbygjL6ODR6r9OALkm mU/CvbsfSCmXFSvtACku0GNGNBtAbO8xx2bvx6uQgR2QGlcTvcArnvrWOcfW8YokTvI2 ORCCValdhg/2wA0T6mPLfNMW8ON3iR9p8dOz8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.192.197 with SMTP id hi5mr26549664igc.16.1324288989214; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 02:03:09 -0800 (PST) Sender: utisoft@gmail.com Received: by 10.231.199.18 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 02:03:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.199.18 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 02:03:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4EEF0AF1.20501@FreeBSD.org> References: <201112181751.pBIHpivv027591@repoman.freebsd.org> <4EEF0AF1.20501@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:03:09 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Xjtk3UBefJG4OWuJF6-V51oHWiQ Message-ID: From: Chris Rees To: Doug Barton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org, freebsd-xfce@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/sysutils/xfce4-utils Makefile X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: **OBSOLETE** CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:03:10 -0000 On 19 Dec 2011 09:59, "Doug Barton" wrote: > > Thanks, that's 1/3 of the job done. :) The problem is that the current > OPTION creates the false idea that the only way you can lock your screen > is to use xlockmore. > > Perhaps you missed my followup where I mentioned that the next step > would be to add an OPTION for xscreensaver as well, and the logic to > avoid having them both defined. I'll look at that later. > Better yet would be to detect if one or the other is already installed, > and default the OPTIONS accordingly. Autodetection in ports? No thanks! Chris