On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 01:08:19PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 03:59:20PM +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > Carefully selected and reasonable defaults is one of the strong sides > > of ports (and thus packages) that we offer, despite all aforementioned > > drawbacks. > > User feedback at the last 2 conferences that I have been to, is that we > are insufficiently consistent in our defaults. (In particular, X11 and > CUPS are frequently mentioned as offenders; there are others.) This > primarily affects our default-built packages.
I would say there is only minor CUPS inconsistency (most of the times it is correctly disabled; few remaining ports should be converted I think); for X11 it's a bit more tricky: roughly, if a port is likely enough to be used in non-X11 environment (or it's a server only thing), no X11 support by default seems reasonable for package. Otherwise having X11 dependency is natural, since those bits would be installed by 99% of desktop users anyways. ./danfe _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
