Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:55:45 -0500
From:      Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net>
To:        Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>
Cc:        ports@freebsd.org, Dejan Lesjak <dejan.lesjak@ijs.si>, freebsd-x11@freebsd.org, Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: RFC: Merging X11BASE to LOCALBASE
Message-ID:  <20060714195545.GA78103@lor.one-eyed-alien.net>
In-Reply-To: <44B7F182.8080009@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <200607130024.18047.dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> <44B740A5.6050709@FreeBSD.org> <200607141300.43547.dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> <44B7F182.8080009@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 12:33:22PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> Dejan Lesjak wrote:
> > On Friday 14 July 2006 08:58, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> >> What's the gain?=20
> >=20
> > I believe I mentioned some of gains in first mail. There is also the be=
nefit=20
> > of less divergence to upstreams as ./configure scripts of various ports=
=20
> > use /usr/local as default prefix, but more importantly as modular X.org=
 is=20
> > becoming more widespread there is tendency of various packagers (for ex=
ample=20
> > Linux distributions already mentioned) to install all packages under sa=
me=20
> > prefix. We expect that if we follow that trend, we would make maintaine=
rs and=20
> > users' lives a bit easier in the long run.
>=20
> Note, I am still making up my mind about whether what you're proposing is=
 a
> good idea or not, so I'm not intending this as a criticism. However, the
> argument you propose above as a benefit for the move is completely specio=
us.
> Our ports are supposed to be prefix-clean no matter what the defaults in =
the
> distributed software are, and no matter what prefix the user chooses. Thus
> (other than ports which are broken now which need fixing anyway), the only
> thing this move will do is ADD work for maintainers (at least in the short
> run), it will not make anyone's life easier in this area.
>=20
> I would also like to reinforce Maxim's point here, since I think it's
> getting lost in the shuffle. The burden to the users is NOT just
> reinstalling, which with modern tools like portmaster or portupgrade shou=
ld
> be pretty painless, if not time consuming. There is also the burden to our
> users of editing config files, firefox app preferences, etc. etc. Some of
> these can be handled automatically by the ports, many of them cannot.

Assuming we deal with all the conflicting ports in the first round
I don't fully buy this argument.  If most people can simply upgrade
the ports in question then "rm -rf /usr/X11RC && ln -s /usr/local
/usr/X11R6" will take care of config files.  That's admittedly a large
assumption, but I don't think it's all that unreasonable.

I think the argument for this change is that the use of X11BASE is
pretty much random so it's no longer serving any useful purpose and the
lack of consistency is a minor negative since you never know where an X
related port will end up without reading the Makefile.

-- Brooks

--tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFEt/bAXY6L6fI4GtQRAsTiAJ4wNOEAnQdna0Ja3ua2AS4FHZ/XtQCeOILI
GuRqL2IoSNSVWW2FK/S8WUc=
=wnwh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060714195545.GA78103>