From owner-freebsd-ports Tue May 16 22:59:22 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from rock.ghis.net (rock.ghis.net [209.222.164.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D53E137B6C6; Tue, 16 May 2000 22:59:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from will@blackdawn.com) Received: from argon.blackdawn.com ([209.69.77.41]) by rock.ghis.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA14536; Tue, 16 May 2000 22:59:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by argon.blackdawn.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8BA1E1920; Wed, 17 May 2000 01:58:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 01:58:59 -0400 From: Will Andrews To: Chuck Robey Cc: "David O'Brien" , FreeBSD Ports Subject: Re: X11 issues (XFree86-libs port uploaded) Message-ID: <20000517015859.B52630@argon.blackdawn.com> References: <20000516153314.D79475@dragon.nuxi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from chuckr@picnic.mat.net on Tue, May 16, 2000 at 08:24:05PM -0400 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 08:24:05PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: > I like the idea of a i386 package and a alpha package, I just don't see > why that mandates the thing has to be in little pieces. It doesn't really mandate that, but what does is flexibility. Not everyone wants to RUN the X server, but just have libs and/or headers installed if they build any ports that need xpm or similar support. There's your reason for breaking it up. -- Will Andrews GCS/E/S @d- s+:+>+:- a--->+++ C++ UB++++ P+ L- E--- W+++ !N !o ?K w--- ?O M+ V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+>+++ t++ 5 X++ R+ tv+ b++>++++ DI+++ D+ G++>+++ e->++++ h! r-->+++ y? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message