Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:28:58 -0600 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> To: Florent Thoumie <flz@freebsd.org> Cc: Niclas Zeising <niclas.zeising@gmail.com>, freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Subject: Re: X.org (experimental) ports moving to LOCALBASE soon Message-ID: <20070109162858.GA88663@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <45A37979.4060102@FreeBSD.org> References: <45A2F08B.1010009@FreeBSD.org> <20070109020347.GB2599@mail.scottro.net> <bc292860701090223s24b7b638g1dd770838aed6033@mail.gmail.com> <45A37979.4060102@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 11:16:09AM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote:
> Niclas Zeising wrote:
> > On 1/9/07, Scott Robbins <scottro@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 01:31:55AM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote:
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > Now that most ports are X11BASE-clean, I'm going to move X.org ports=
to
> >> > ${LOCALBASE} (as opposed to ${X11BASE}, where they live now). So exp=
ect
> >> > a commit talking about X.org PREFIX in the next few days.
> >> >
> >> > Actually, I advise using git-whatchanged and git-log before you make
> >> any
> >> > upgrade of your installed ports. The prefix change should need a
> >> > PORTREVISION bump but I won't do it (cause I'm too lazy), so you'll
> >> have
> >> > to type something like "portupgrade -R xorg\*".
> >> >
> >=20
> > [SNIP]
> >=20
> >>
> >> My own list--(it'd be great if other people give their opinions
> >> too--SirDice, if you're reading this, it's a start at our xorg-lite) :)
> >=20
> > Um, speaking of xorg-lite, I was thinking a bit about doing an
> > option-based xorg install, where you can choose what to install at
> > config-time via the ncurses-based framework. The options will
> > propably mostly be related to drivers and maybe some apps in that
> > case. The drawback is that we might get horrible Makefiles because of
> > all options and so on... But anyway, what do you guys think? I'm not
> > even sure if it's doable, it's just an idea.
>=20
> I was thinking of writing a default set of dependencoes and giving the
> opportunity to select the exact bits you want to install (like a USE
> flag). Assuming there's like ~300 ports, I'm not sure to go the OPTIONS w=
ay.
If there are 300 ports, OPTIONS is absolutly not the way to go. The
dialog on the ghostscript ports is an example of how much this sucks.
-- Brooks
--8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFFo8LJXY6L6fI4GtQRAiArAJ9TlW4WlVvTERE6qzhce6FpEBhabQCdFJC8
3Anfd4T3e3qYWXp+04dHeNc=
=0IeG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070109162858.GA88663>