Jacob Meuser wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:27:18PM +0300, Liviu Daia wrote:
> > On 20 May 2006, Jacob Meuser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 10:09:15AM +0300, Liviu Daia wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have a simpler question: is there any plan to make installing
> > > > xbase a requirement in the foreseeable future?
> > >
> > > no. nothing in {base,comp,man,misc,game,etc}XX.tgz depends on anything
> > > from xbaseXX.tgz, and that is extremely unlikely to ever change.
> > [...]
> >
> > Ok, let me rephrase this. How realistic will be to run an OpenBSD
> > firewall or router without xbase a few years from now?
>
> it will be just as it is now: you do't need xbase as long as you aren't
> also installing packages that depend on something from xbase.
>
> > With the release of 3.9, there seems to be a new trend among port
> > maintainers to make running a systems without xbase a PITA: packages
> > of console applications now depend on X at run time even though that
> > could be avoided with minimal fuss (example: mrtg),
>
> who is deciding what "minimal fuss" and "PITA" are? oh, yeah,
> you, the same person who doesn't install xbase for space reasons,
> but then builds ports instead of installing packages. IMO, you
> aren't qualified to define "minimal fuss" and "PITA", since you
> choose the PITA of building ports over the minimal fuss of installing
> packages. and that's not just me deciding "minimal fuss" and "PITA",
> that's from FAQ 15.
>
> > compiling ports that
> > don't depend on X at run time now requires X (example: nmap-no_x11),
>
> this statement is incorrect. it is quite possible to build the
> nmap-no_x11 package from ports without xbase being installed, you
> just have to to be careful, as ports(7) says.
>
> > and building ports without xbase is now unsupported (FAQ 15.4.1). So
>
> this is nothig new.
>
> > what I'm asking is: is all this an accident, or the new official policy?
> > Will there be any effort put into making sure ports don't depend on X
> > when that's reasonably feasible?
>
> efforts are made all the time to avoid unnecessary dependencies.
> that's part of the reason behind FLAVORs and SUBPACKAGEs.
>
> > Does anybody still care?
>
> on ports@, you've already accused people who disagree with you of
> being "highly political". just exactly what is a statement like the
> above intended to do? and just what does it mean, anyway?
>
> > What's the official take on this?
>
> what again is the problem with installing xbase, if you are installing
> packages that depend on things from xbase?
>
> and of course, you blame this on port maintainers, when the "problem"
> that started this whole "discussion" is that the current version of
> gd, a _graphics_ package, now depends on things from X.org, while the
> old one didn't. I suppose you are making false statements and crying
> all over the gd lists are well?
>
> --
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm sure I'm missing something, but seems that with the xaperture thingee
turned off, there is less incentive to avoid something like xbase if
you've got a few things that might be easier if they do not need to
bifurcate their logic just to handle the nox cases.
30MB at 50 cents per GB is a bit under the customary two cents.
I think I would prefer the 30MB to ANY complications in any scripts or such.
Graphics packages that DON'T depend on something call xbase?
Seems strange, somehow.
