Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:18:47 +0100 From: Dejan Lesjak <dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> To: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Cc: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: more libICE directory creation Message-ID: <200501110018.47984.dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> In-Reply-To: <41E3051B.4000904@FreeBSD.org> References: <1105396628.866.12.camel@leguin> <41E3051B.4000904@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 10 of January 2005 23:43, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > Eric Anholt wrote: > | (Just found out about this list from lesi@) > | > | After several rounds of proposed solutions to the X11 libICE problem, > | lesi suggested that we just put the .ICE-unix directory creation in > | cleartmp as was first proposed. Putting a script in ports would be > | doable, but adds more complications, and we've already got X11 pieces in > | cleartmp. While preparex11 taking over this job might be cleaner, it's > | easier to just add it to cleartmp and not make the directory creation > | optional (it's one inode, which we'd waste just the same by making a > | preparex11 script). > | > | Does anyone have an issue with this? I'm planning on doing it tomorrow > | unless there's an uproar. > > The only issue I have is that this doesn't help -RELEASE users > (specifically 5.3-RELEASE users). I suppose this would work if we added > it to the errata branch, but for pure -RELEASE users they still won't > have a fix. > > Joe A short rc script can be added to both -libraries ports (as they are the first in X11 dependencies so we get the script as soon as possible) as a temporary transition workaround. If the __FreeBSD_version is bumped at time when cleartmp is updated, we can install it based on that. And by short I mean something like this: /usr/X11R6/etc/rc.d/000.ICEtmp.sh: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- #!/bin/sh rm -fr /tmp/.ICE-unix mkdir -m 1777 /tmp/.ICE-unix -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hm, I don't know if that would be OK, but given the shortness of this and that the versions of X.Org/XFree86 in last releases are not so strict about this, this could be put into UPDATING and avoid putting two scripts in ports, but I don't know if this is acceptable. Dejan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200501110018.47984.dejan.lesjak>