On 12/12/2011 13:38, Rene Ladan wrote:
> On 12-12-2011 22:23, Doug Barton wrote:
>> Not only is this not necessary if you run xscreensaver already, it's
>> probably a bad idea. At minimum, can you make this optional?
> [cvs-lists omitted]
> I could make it optional if you insist, but if you do a fresh install
> with xfce4-utils but without xlockmore you'll notice the dangling
> invocation. I don't see that xlockmore and xscreensaver conflict, so
> why would it be a Bad Idea(TM) ?
If we are going to install something by default, it should probably be
xscreensaver. And yes, I'm biased because I maintain that port, but the
client-server model of xscreensaver make it a better choice if actually
keeping the screen locked is part of the goal. :)
Given that the thing has existed to date just fine with no dependency to
fulfill the "dangling invocation" can I suggest adding xscreensaver as
an optional dependency, or if people feel strongly about offering
xlockmore to offer them both, with the requisite logic to prevent
installing both? Bonus points if we can detect that one of them is
already installed. :)
>> On 12/11/2011 04:56, Rene Ladan wrote:
>>> rene 2011-12-11 12:56:18 UTC
>>> FreeBSD ports repository
>>> Modified files:
>>> sysutils/xfce4-utils Makefile
>>> - Add a runtime dependency on x11/xlockmore so that xflock4 can invoke
>>> - Bump PORTREVISION
>>> Feature safe: yes
>>> Revision Changes Path
>>> 1.58 +3 -0 ports/sysutils/xfce4-utils/Makefile
> firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-xfce-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-xfce-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"