Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:53:35 -0500 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: anders@fix.no, andreas@FreeBSD.ORG, eric@cybernut.com, ijliao@FreeBSD.ORG, jdp@FreeBSD.ORG, jdp@polstra.com, jmz@FreeBSD.ORG, jseger@FreeBSD.ORG, keith@FreeBSD.ORG, knu@FreeBSD.ORG, lioux@FreeBSD.ORG, matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org, mi@aldan.algebra.com, nectar@FreeBSD.ORG, nobutaka@nobutaka.com, obrien@FreeBSD.ORG, ozz@FreeBSD.org.ru, sam@inf.enst.fr, sheldonh@FreeBSD.ORG, shige@FreeBSD.ORG, trevor@FreeBSD.ORG, yatt@msc.biglobe.ne.jp, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: WITHOUT_X vs. WITHOUT_X11 vs. NO_X Message-ID: <15127.62143.888966.869172@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <3B17F09C.2EFB0B48@FreeBSD.org> References: <15127.61125.223478.210748@guru.mired.org> <3B17F09C.2EFB0B48@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG> types: > Mike Meyer wrote: > > Since WITHOUT_X has already been documented, fixing the ports that > > used one of the other variables to use that one relatively soon would > > be a good thing. Unless there's a good reason to use one of the other > > two, that is. > I'm voting for WITHOUT_X11 - it is unlikely that we will see X12 in a foreseable > future, so why to bother? If we never see X12, there's no reason to use either one. On the off chance that we do, we'll have problems. Why ask for trouble? <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. 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?15127.62143.888966.869172>