Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 09:08:16 +0300 (EEST) From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@mail-in.net> To: petef@databits.net Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: WITHOUT_X vs. WITHOUT_X11 vs. NO_X Message-ID: <200106020608.f52687o49773@mail.uic-in.net> In-Reply-To: <20010601201724.B90897@databits.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001 20:17:24 -0400, Pete Fritchman wrote: > ++ 01/06/01 22:44 +0300 - Maxim Sobolev: > | I'm voting for WITHOUT_X11 - it is unlikely that we will see X12 in a foreseable > | future, so why to bother? > | > | -Maxim > > [ 10 years ago ] > > "Why add support for 4-digit years? I doubt people will still be using > this old version of software in 10 years!" This is unfair comparison, because even if we will ever have X12 then it would be incompatible with X11, thus we will have to distinguish whether luser want support for X11 or X12 or both, so my variant actually provides better granularity for than yours. :-P That said, I don't really believe that version number in this variable really matters. To me it looks like if someone would argue that WO_X is better that WO_X11 because the former provides 2-byte saving per Makefile. ;) The only reason why I'm insisting on it is the fact that IMO WITHOUT_X11 looks more clear than WITHOUT_X. It is also more consistent with existent X11BASE variable. -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?200106020608.f52687o49773>