From owner-freebsd-ports Mon Mar 20 22:19:31 1995 Return-Path: ports-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id WAA00830 for ports-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 1995 22:19:31 -0800 Received: from isl.cf.ac.uk (isl-gate.elsy.cf.ac.uk [131.251.22.1]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id WAA00823 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 1995 22:19:29 -0800 Received: (from paul@localhost) by isl.cf.ac.uk (8.6.9/8.6.9) id GAA00286; Tue, 21 Mar 1995 06:19:12 GMT From: Paul Richards Message-Id: <199503210619.GAA00286@isl.cf.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Gripe of the week (tm) :-) To: mark@grondar.za (Mark Murray) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 06:19:12 +0000 (GMT) Cc: rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com, ports@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199503210616.IAA01367@grunt.grondar.za> from "Mark Murray" at Mar 21, 95 08:16:31 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 853 Sender: ports-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In reply to Mark Murray who said > > > This has been a long standing gripe of mine. The problem is that most > > X software expects to be able to play around in the X tree and I've seen > > enough cases of this to stop arguing about it. Think app-defaults if > > nothing else. > > I have seen enough evidence to consider app-defaults an exception. > how about separating "core" and "local", and just leave app-defaults? > If anything at all gets written to the X tree then it tends to negate the point. I think we should get in touch with the XFree86 folks and push to have the whole thing done properly. -- Paul Richards, FreeBSD core team member. Internet: paul@FreeBSD.org, URL: http://isl.cf.ac.uk/~paul/ Phone: +44 1222 874000 x6646 (work), +44 1222 457651 (home) Dept. Mechanical Engineering, University of Wales, College Cardiff.