Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 13:14:17 +0200 From: Anders Nordby <anders@fix.no> To: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net> Cc: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>, Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG>, 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, 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: <20010604131416.A90338@totem.fix.no> In-Reply-To: <7782.991637382@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za>; from sheldonh@starjuice.net on Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 08:49:42AM %2B0200 References: <15127.62143.888966.869172@guru.mired.org> <7782.991637382@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 08:49:42AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote: >>> 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? > Guys, whether we use WITHOUT_X11 or WITHOUT_X, changes will have to be > made. Since WITHOUT_X makes a little bit more sense than WITHOUT_X11, > let's just make the changes and be done with it. I disagree. I think X11 better identifies what we are disabling support for than just X. X can be anything. WITHOUT_X11 was also the consensus last time the discussion was on -ports, and I think -doc folks should adhere to that. Cheers, -- Anders. 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?20010604131416.A90338>