On 22 May 2006, steven mestdagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 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?
I don't have a "no space left on device" problem, and my point
was never about that. If you still don't get it, my problem is that,
with the current policy, three years from now there will be 50+ other
ports depending on X for no reason. At that point, the disks, CFs, and
everything else will be larger and cheaper, and somebody will notice
that we already need to install xbase to do anything non-trivial on a
router, so why not get rid of no_x11 altogether? That would free a lot
of maintainer resources, and people have waited for ever for antialiased
fonts and true colors. What would you answer when that happens?
This is why I'm asking for an official statement.
> > 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.
Like I said, there are many ways around that, including compiling
from sources outside the ports. But that's not relevant to what I'm
asking.
> > 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.
Oh yes, I'm aware of that, the thread on ports@ made it clear.
> 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.
I'm aware of that too. At this point, some people are probably
willing to go out of their way to keep those two options out of
Makefile, just because I asked for it. :-) This doesn't really disprove
what I said above.
[...]
> Now please stop wasting people's time with this.
In the 7+ years I've been using OpenBSD I haven't bothered this list
very often. So don't worry, I'll go away once this thread is over.
Regards,
Liviu Daia
--
Dr. Liviu Daia http://www.imar.ro/~daia
