Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 21:52:56 +0300 (EEST) From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@mail-in.net> To: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: WITHOUT_X vs. WITHOUT_X11 vs. NO_X Message-ID: <200106041852.f54Iquo58220@mail.uic-in.net> In-Reply-To: <20010604093025.A84595@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:30:25 -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 01:14:17PM +0200, Anders Nordby wrote: > > I disagree. I think X11 better identifies what we are disabling support > > for than just X. X can be anything. > > Then NO_X in the base system is bad? > > > > WITHOUT_X11 was also the consensus last time the discussion was on > > -ports, and I think -doc folks should adhere to that. > > It isn't what "the -doc folks should adhear to". > I am looking for an excutive decision from on high (ie, portmgr). > I will personally change make.conf.5 as soon as they declare what it > shall be. People, please stop this silly thread! Last time the question was brought up nobody complained against WITHOUT_X11, while at least two members of portmgr (will and sobomax) agreed with it. We have whole bunch of X11 out there (just think about x11, x11-wm, x11-fm etc. categories, X11BASE variable etc.), so I think it is doesn't make much sense to be so anal about "version number hardcoded", of course if those who complain aren't going to fix all other places as well. I've already committed changes to documentation and going to adjust all ports that use other ways to disable X11 support. -Maxim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200106041852.f54Iquo58220>