Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 2 Jun 2001 09:12:38 -0700
From:      "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org>
To:        portsmgr@freebsd.org
Cc:        Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>, ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: WITHOUT_X vs. WITHOUT_X11 vs. NO_X
Message-ID:  <20010602091237.B73968@dragon.nuxi.com>
In-Reply-To: <15127.61125.223478.210748@guru.mired.org>; from mwm@mired.org on Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 02:36:37PM -0500
References:  <15127.61125.223478.210748@guru.mired.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
*sigh* this is comming up *AGAIN*?!?!?

Portsmgrs, when this last came up, people seemed to agree on
"WITHOUT_X11" so I changed my ports to use that.  Now it seems WITHOUT_X
has gotten documented as the proper way.

We came to a consensis to use "WITHOUT_X11" in a discussion on
freebsd-ports April 26-May 2, 2001.

It seems that "WITHOUT_X" was recently "decided" upon by the freebsd-doc
list and may have gotten written down somewhere.  I don't know why
freebsd-doc thinks it can decide ports issues.  But anyway this is what
is adding to the confusion.

As our Ports Collection leaders, please consider the below and decree
what the correct knob will be so we can get on with our lives.

-- 
-- David  (obrien@FreeBSD.org)


On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 02:36:37PM -0500, Mike Meyer wrote:
> Various ports test NO_X, WITHOUT_X, or WITHOUT_X11 to see if they
> should build without X support. The make.conf man page was recently
> changed to indicate to users that WITHOUT_X is the variable to use for
> that. My searches of the -ports archive didn't turn up anything, so
> there may not have been sufficient discussion of it before this
> happened.
> 
> NO_X is documented as disabling X supportin parts of the base
> system. While using this for ports is a logical extension of that,
> it's not clear that the same flag should be used for ports and for the
> base system. If you're building packages on a system on which you
> don't run X, you might want to set NO_X for the base system, but have
> the packages default to building with support for X.
> 
> WITHOUT_X11 includes the version number of X, which is
> inappropriate. If we ever need to distinguish between X versions, then
> X_VERSION - matching XFREE86_VERSION - would be more appropriate.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 	Thanx,
> 	<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?20010602091237.B73968>