Liviu Daia [2006-05-22, 12:27:18]: > Ok, let me rephrase this. How realistic will be to run an OpenBSD > firewall or router without xbase a few years from now?
Huh? You do not and will not need xbase to run a firewall/router. > 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 You are completely blowing up your own "gd/xbase/no space left on device" problem beyond proportion, and accusing/insulting port maintainers for it? > compiling ports that > don't depend on X at run time now requires X (example: nmap-no_x11), > and building ports without xbase is now unsupported (FAQ 15.4.1). You do not understand. Unsupported does not mean impossible, it means you are on your own to do it. If you can't do this, just use the no_x11 package, as has been said many times now. > 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? Does anybody still care? What's the > official take on this? Clearly, this no_x11 stuff has a low priority. If you are still talking about making no_x11 flavors for the gd library and everything that depends on it, I doubt this will happen. But yeah, no_x11 packages can be created when it's feasible and useful; this has been done in the past and can continue in the future. As for building ports on system without X11, nobody cares AFAIK. Now please stop wasting people's time with this. steven Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
