Re: RFC: Merging X11BASE to LOCALBASE
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 01:32:06AM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 09:43:54PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: This makes no sense at all, since X.org is (by definition) X11R7. They changed the protocol? I thought that was what the suffix was originally for. No, not really. The suffix is mainly just a revision number for the code base. The (major) version number for the protocol is the '11' part, which has not been changed for nearly 20 years now. -- Insert your favourite quote here. Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC: Merging X11BASE to LOCALBASE
On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 21:43 +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: Dejan Lesjak [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] as far as X.org 7 ports themselves go, they right now already happily build and install under /usr/X11R6 prefix [...] This makes no sense at all, since X.org is (by definition) X11R7. BTW, I am constantly amazed at FreeBSD ports maintainers' continued insistence that X, Y or Z can't be done when in fact everybody else is already doing it, and FreeBSD is the odd one out with innumberable hacks and tweaks to make it work our way instead of the way everybody else does it. This debate is a perfect example of this: the rest of the world already installs everything (X, KDE, Gnome...) under a single prefix - usually /usr - yet FreeBSD port maintainers insist that it can't possibly be done. Nobody says it can't be done. The fact we've had two different prefixes for such a long time just created possible collisions when it comes to merging them. -- Florent Thoumie [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD Committer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFC: Merging X11BASE to LOCALBASE
What's the gain? Transition will be a really big PITA for most existing
users. Everybody who would be trying to install a KDE/GNOME or even a
general X11 port after a switchover still having all X11 bits in
/usr/X11R6 is likely to be screwed on build time, due to mismatching
includes/libraries search paths. And I am not even telling about
run-time problems with datafiles in KDE/GNOME.
The only way to handle such a merge for ordinary Joe User would be to
remove all X11 bits and pieces and compile/install everything from
scratch. And despite what X11 maintainers may believe (due to the nature
of their position they
compile/install/remove/compile/install/remove/.../ad infinite all X11
bits and pieces every day), ordinary Joe User doesn't like such gross
upgrades, since even with the best packaging system in the world
virtually any such upgrade will bring new unanticipated problems to the
system that otherwise has been working before upgrade just fine.
Therefore, I doubt that such pull the trigger approach is really going
to work in this case. Some more gradual course is in due: with X11R6
being banned as a target for a new ports, with new GNOME version moving
to the LOCALBASE and so on.
-Maxim
Dejan Lesjak wrote:
Hello,
There were a couple of debates already concerning /usr/X11R6 as prefix for X11
ports and a bunch of other ports that currently by default install there.
Quite some people were, when creating a new port that depends on X11,
wandering whether to put it in X11BASE or LOCALBASE. More than once a
question of whether the prefix /usr/X11R6 should be just dropped or at least
only retained for core X11 distribution. With the upcoming X.org 7.x ports
there is perhaps the opportunity to do the prefix merger along that.
Moving X11 prefix to LOCALBASE would simplify above dilemma. It would be also
more similar to where linux distributions are going (at least Gentoo, Debian
and Fedora deprecated /usr/X11R6 in favour of /usr which, while
not /usr/local is the location of where all packages install - depending on
X11 or not). If I remember correctly from previous discussions, it would be
more convenient to people with separate mounts for installed packages as
well. /usr/local is also the default value for --prefix configure option for
X.org packages.
So it is general intention to go with /usr/local or rather ${LOCALBASE} as
prefix for X11 ports. If anyone feels that this is horribly wrong, please
speak up.
On behalf of x11 team,
Dejan
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC: Merging X11BASE to LOCALBASE
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 23:58 -0700, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
What's the gain? Transition will be a really big PITA for most existing
users. Everybody who would be trying to install a KDE/GNOME or even a
general X11 port after a switchover still having all X11 bits in
/usr/X11R6 is likely to be screwed on build time, due to mismatching
includes/libraries search paths. And I am not even telling about
run-time problems with datafiles in KDE/GNOME.
The only way to handle such a merge for ordinary Joe User would be to
remove all X11 bits and pieces and compile/install everything from
scratch. And despite what X11 maintainers may believe (due to the nature
of their position they
compile/install/remove/compile/install/remove/.../ad infinite all X11
bits and pieces every day), ordinary Joe User doesn't like such gross
upgrades, since even with the best packaging system in the world
virtually any such upgrade will bring new unanticipated problems to the
system that otherwise has been working before upgrade just fine.
Therefore, I doubt that such pull the trigger approach is really going
to work in this case. Some more gradual course is in due: with X11R6
being banned as a target for a new ports, with new GNOME version moving
to the LOCALBASE and so on.
We (the FreeBSD GNOME Team) are discussing such an approach for the
upcoming GNOME 2.16 release. We will be transitioning to LOCALBASE
following the 2.15.4 development release.
Joe
-Maxim
Dejan Lesjak wrote:
Hello,
There were a couple of debates already concerning /usr/X11R6 as prefix for
X11
ports and a bunch of other ports that currently by default install there.
Quite some people were, when creating a new port that depends on X11,
wandering whether to put it in X11BASE or LOCALBASE. More than once a
question of whether the prefix /usr/X11R6 should be just dropped or at
least
only retained for core X11 distribution. With the upcoming X.org 7.x ports
there is perhaps the opportunity to do the prefix merger along that.
Moving X11 prefix to LOCALBASE would simplify above dilemma. It would be
also
more similar to where linux distributions are going (at least Gentoo,
Debian
and Fedora deprecated /usr/X11R6 in favour of /usr which, while
not /usr/local is the location of where all packages install - depending on
X11 or not). If I remember correctly from previous discussions, it would be
more convenient to people with separate mounts for installed packages as
well. /usr/local is also the default value for --prefix configure option
for
X.org packages.
So it is general intention to go with /usr/local or rather ${LOCALBASE} as
prefix for X11 ports. If anyone feels that this is horribly wrong, please
speak up.
On behalf of x11 team,
Dejan
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFC: Merging X11BASE to LOCALBASE
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:09:27 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello;
--- Dejan Lesjak [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto:
On Friday 14 July 2006 01:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi;
Just here mumbling...
It would be interesting to set
X11BASE=/usr/X11 when using XFree86 and
X11BASE=${LOCALBASE} when using XOrg.
Not only due to historical consistency (/usr/X11 is the path
recommended in
XFree86 manpages), but as a way to be able to use XFree86 and keep the
system somewhat cleaner.
Well, I was planing XFree86 would move to LOCALBASE as well - if it
doesn't,
ports depending on X11 would have to special case XFree86 libraries and
includes and such, which would make system a bit less clean. Why do you
think
Hmm.. there should be no need to have special cases for ports that
properly
respect X11BASE. Ports that don't respect X11BASE (those that have
/usr/X11R6
hard coded) should be cleaned/fixed anyways.
using /usr/X11 would make things cleaner?
I haven't checked lately but XFree86 and XOrg are currently in conflict
aren't
they? One has to deinstall and rebuild all the packages built with XOrg
and
start a fresh build to use XFree86. Having XFree86 on it's own prefix
would
avoid the problem of having packages built with the wrong version of X
and it
also make an eventual clean up easier.
Nobody should install both xorg and xfree86 at the same time. It's pretty
pointless and it would cause more messy when you try to build other ports
that depend on either of it. Move everything in LOCALBASE, nothing more
and nothing less, is much cleaner.
Cheers,
Mezz
I think the user perceived default wouldn't change, with most people
using XOrg
in LOCALBASE, and some people using XFree86 in X11BASE. Of course if
eventually
X11BASE disappears is another matter, but at least for backwards
compatibility
(4.x?) it's good to have it for a while.
just my 0.02$
Pedro.
Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FreeBSD GNOME Team - FreeBSD Multimedia Hat (ports, not src)
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wiki.freebsd.org/multimedia - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC: Merging X11BASE to LOCALBASE
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 08:10:01PM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 08:59:08PM -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 19:56 -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 04:48:39PM -0700, Fred Cox wrote: Those man pages for whatis are pretty radically different in size. Maybe they are mergeable, but there's going to be a fair amount of work doing that for all possible conflicts. They are generated files see makewhatis(1). There will probably be a few real conflicts, but it's unlikely to be a serious issue. It may be more serious than you think. Currently, GNOME and KDE will conflict with each other if this move happens. We will have to either come up with a new pseudo-port to handle common files, or find some other way of consolidating things. That should be a pretty easy thing to check out. Just installing GNOME and KDE on the same machine and then running: cat /var/db/pkg/*/+CONTENTS | sort | uniq -d I have Gnome, KDE, IceWM and Xfce installed, here is what I got: % for f in `cat /var/db/pkg/*/+CONTENTS | sort | uniq -d |grep -v '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'` ; do grep ^$f\$ /var/db/pkg/*/+CONTENTS; echo ; done /var/db/pkg/bash-3.1.17/+CONTENTS:bin/bash /var/db/pkg/linux_base-fc-4_6/+CONTENTS:bin/bash /var/db/pkg/linux_base-fc-4_6/+CONTENTS:bin/rpm /var/db/pkg/rpm-3.0.6_13/+CONTENTS:bin/rpm /var/db/pkg/fontconfig-2.3.2_5,1/+CONTENTS:etc/fonts/fonts.dtd /var/db/pkg/linux-fontconfig-2.2.3_5/+CONTENTS:etc/fonts/fonts.dtd /var/db/pkg/gnome-menus-2.14.0/+CONTENTS:etc/xdg/menus/applications.menu /var/db/pkg/kdelibs-3.5.3/+CONTENTS:etc/xdg/menus/applications.menu /var/db/pkg/freeglut-2.4.0_1/+CONTENTS:include/GL/glut.h /var/db/pkg/libglut-6.4.2/+CONTENTS:include/GL/glut.h /var/db/pkg/db42-4.2.52_4/+CONTENTS:lib/libdb-4.2.so /var/db/pkg/linux_base-fc-4_6/+CONTENTS:lib/libdb-4.2.so /var/db/pkg/freeglut-2.4.0_1/+CONTENTS:lib/libglut.a /var/db/pkg/libglut-6.4.2/+CONTENTS:lib/libglut.a /var/db/pkg/freeglut-2.4.0_1/+CONTENTS:lib/libglut.so /var/db/pkg/libglut-6.4.2/+CONTENTS:lib/libglut.so /var/db/pkg/linux_base-fc-4_6/+CONTENTS:lib/libpcre.so.0 /var/db/pkg/pcre-6.7/+CONTENTS:lib/libpcre.so.0 /var/db/pkg/kdeadmin-3.5.3/+CONTENTS:libdata/pkgconfig/system-tools-backends.pc /var/db/pkg/system-tools-backends-1.4.2/+CONTENTS:libdata/pkgconfig/system-tools-backends.pc /var/db/pkg/open-motif-2.2.3_2/+CONTENTS:man/man3/Object.3.gz /var/db/pkg/tcl-8.4.13_1,1/+CONTENTS:man/man3/Object.3.gz /var/db/pkg/dpkg-1.10.28_1/+CONTENTS:sbin/install-info /var/db/pkg/linux_base-fc-4_6/+CONTENTS:sbin/install-info /var/db/pkg/gnome-libs-1.4.2_5/+CONTENTS:share/gnome/pixmaps/gnome-default-dlg.png /var/db/pkg/libgnomeui-2.14.1_1/+CONTENTS:share/gnome/pixmaps/gnome-default-dlg.png /var/db/pkg/gnome-libs-1.4.2_5/+CONTENTS:share/gnome/pixmaps/gnome-error.png /var/db/pkg/libgnomeui-2.14.1_1/+CONTENTS:share/gnome/pixmaps/gnome-error.png /var/db/pkg/gnome-libs-1.4.2_5/+CONTENTS:share/gnome/pixmaps/gnome-info.png /var/db/pkg/libgnomeui-2.14.1_1/+CONTENTS:share/gnome/pixmaps/gnome-info.png /var/db/pkg/gnome-libs-1.4.2_5/+CONTENTS:share/gnome/pixmaps/gnome-question.png /var/db/pkg/libgnomeui-2.14.1_1/+CONTENTS:share/gnome/pixmaps/gnome-question.png /var/db/pkg/gnome-libs-1.4.2_5/+CONTENTS:share/gnome/pixmaps/gnome-warning.png /var/db/pkg/libgnomeui-2.14.1_1/+CONTENTS:share/gnome/pixmaps/gnome-warning.png /var/db/pkg/hicolor-icon-theme-0.5/+CONTENTS:share/icons/hicolor/index.theme /var/db/pkg/kdelibs-3.5.3/+CONTENTS:share/icons/hicolor/index.theme /var/db/pkg/libthai-0.1.5_1/+CONTENTS:share/nls/POSIX /var/db/pkg/pgtop-0.04/+CONTENTS:share/nls/POSIX /var/db/pkg/libthai-0.1.5_1/+CONTENTS:share/nls/en_US.US-ASCII /var/db/pkg/pgtop-0.04/+CONTENTS:share/nls/en_US.US-ASCII Cheerz! -- Vasil Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] Testing can show the presence of bugs, but not their absence. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra pgp7VB8YBFkpl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFC: Merging X11BASE to LOCALBASE
On Thu, 2006-Jul-13 01:53:47 +0200, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote: It should be possible to make a shell skript that seds through shell scripts, moves everything around and fixes /var/db/pkg without having to rebuild anything. .la files have absolute pathnames embedded in them. I think you can virtually guarantee that there will also be absolute pathnames in executables and .so's that need fixing. I guess most things would just work that way. The problem isn't the most things would just work, it's confirming that this is indeed true and detecting and handling the ones that don't just work. Despite the pain, a complete rebuild is probably the safest approach. If you're doing a major upgrade on X, this is probably a good idea in any case. -- Peter Jeremy pgpcvzEH4VGnQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFC: Merging X11BASE to LOCALBASE
Hi;
Just here mumbling...
It would be interesting to set
X11BASE=/usr/X11 when using XFree86 and
X11BASE=${LOCALBASE} when using XOrg.
Not only due to historical consistency (/usr/X11 is the path recommended in
XFree86 manpages), but as a way to be able to use XFree86 and keep the system
somewhat cleaner.
cheers,
Pedro.
Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC: Merging X11BASE to LOCALBASE
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 05:34:22PM -0500, John Merryweather Cooper wrote:
Dejan Lesjak wrote:
Hello,
There were a couple of debates already concerning /usr/X11R6 as prefix for
X11 ports and a bunch of other ports that currently by default install
there. Quite some people were, when creating a new port that depends on
X11, wandering whether to put it in X11BASE or LOCALBASE. More than once a
question of whether the prefix /usr/X11R6 should be just dropped or at
least only retained for core X11 distribution. With the upcoming X.org 7.x
ports there is perhaps the opportunity to do the prefix merger along that.
Moving X11 prefix to LOCALBASE would simplify above dilemma. It would be
also more similar to where linux distributions are going (at least Gentoo,
Debian and Fedora deprecated /usr/X11R6 in favour of /usr which, while
not /usr/local is the location of where all packages install - depending
on X11 or not). If I remember correctly from previous discussions, it
would be more convenient to people with separate mounts for installed
packages as well. /usr/local is also the default value for --prefix
configure option for X.org packages.
So it is general intention to go with /usr/local or rather ${LOCALBASE} as
prefix for X11 ports. If anyone feels that this is horribly wrong, please
speak up.
On behalf of x11 team,
Dejan
What impact (if any) would the doubling or tripling of the number of
files in ./bin have on searching along PATH? Would we be shooting
ourselves in the foot if we did this?
Since /usr/X11R6/bin is already in the default path I don't see how
it would make any difference.
-- Brooks
pgpVpVna4LYuM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: RFC: Merging X11BASE to LOCALBASE
What about duplicated file names?
On my desktop:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ ls -l /usr/{X11R6,local}/man/whatis
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 162506 Jul 8 04:15
/usr/X11R6/man/whatis
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 48606 Jul 8 04:15
/usr/local/man/whatis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ ls -l
/usr/{X11R6,local}/share/applications/mimeinfo.cache
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 13 May 7 14:20
/usr/X11R6/share/applications/mimeinfo.cache
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 13 May 7 14:20
/usr/local/share/applications/mimeinfo.cache
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ ls -l
/usr/{X11R6,local}/share/mime/XMLnamespaces
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 0 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/X11R6/share/mime/XMLnamespaces
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 56 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/local/share/mime/XMLnamespaces
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ ls -l
/usr/{X11R6,local}/share/mime/aliases
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 0 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/X11R6/share/mime/aliases
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 2038 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/local/share/mime/aliases
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ ls -l
/usr/{X11R6,local}/share/mime/globs
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 92 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/X11R6/share/mime/globs
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 12850 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/local/share/mime/globs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ ls -l
/usr/{X11R6,local}/share/mime/magic
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 12 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/X11R6/share/mime/magic
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 11275 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/local/share/mime/magic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ ls -l
/usr/{X11R6,local}/share/mime/subclasses
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 0 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/X11R6/share/mime/subclasses
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 3202 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/local/share/mime/subclasses
--- John Merryweather Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Dejan Lesjak wrote:
Hello,
There were a couple of debates already concerning
/usr/X11R6 as prefix for X11
ports and a bunch of other ports that currently by
default install there.
Quite some people were, when creating a new port
that depends on X11,
wandering whether to put it in X11BASE or
LOCALBASE. More than once a
question of whether the prefix /usr/X11R6 should
be just dropped or at least
only retained for core X11 distribution. With the
upcoming X.org 7.x ports
there is perhaps the opportunity to do the prefix
merger along that.
Moving X11 prefix to LOCALBASE would simplify
above dilemma. It would be also
more similar to where linux distributions are
going (at least Gentoo, Debian
and Fedora deprecated /usr/X11R6 in favour of /usr
which, while
not /usr/local is the location of where all
packages install - depending on
X11 or not). If I remember correctly from previous
discussions, it would be
more convenient to people with separate mounts for
installed packages as
well. /usr/local is also the default value for
--prefix configure option for
X.org packages.
So it is general intention to go with /usr/local
or rather ${LOCALBASE} as
prefix for X11 ports. If anyone feels that this is
horribly wrong, please
speak up.
On behalf of x11 team,
Dejan
What impact (if any) would the doubling or tripling
of the number of
files in ./bin have on searching along PATH? Would
we be shooting
ourselves in the foot if we did this?
jmc
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-x11
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC: Merging X11BASE to LOCALBASE
On 7/12/06, Fred Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about duplicated file names?
On my desktop:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ ls -l /usr/{X11R6,local}/man/whatis
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 162506 Jul 8 04:15
/usr/X11R6/man/whatis
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 48606 Jul 8 04:15
/usr/local/man/whatis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ ls -l
/usr/{X11R6,local}/share/applications/mimeinfo.cache
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 13 May 7 14:20
/usr/X11R6/share/applications/mimeinfo.cache
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 13 May 7 14:20
/usr/local/share/applications/mimeinfo.cache
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ ls -l
/usr/{X11R6,local}/share/mime/XMLnamespaces
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 0 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/X11R6/share/mime/XMLnamespaces
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 56 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/local/share/mime/XMLnamespaces
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ ls -l
/usr/{X11R6,local}/share/mime/aliases
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 0 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/X11R6/share/mime/aliases
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 2038 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/local/share/mime/aliases
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ ls -l
/usr/{X11R6,local}/share/mime/globs
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 92 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/X11R6/share/mime/globs
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 12850 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/local/share/mime/globs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ ls -l
/usr/{X11R6,local}/share/mime/magic
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 12 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/X11R6/share/mime/magic
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 11275 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/local/share/mime/magic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ ls -l
/usr/{X11R6,local}/share/mime/subclasses
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 0 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/X11R6/share/mime/subclasses
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 3202 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/local/share/mime/subclasses
alot of this could be merged, ie: all the .cache files
are dynamicly updated when ports that have mime
info or have icons are installed or deinstall.
--- John Merryweather Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Dejan Lesjak wrote:
Hello,
There were a couple of debates already concerning
/usr/X11R6 as prefix for X11
ports and a bunch of other ports that currently by
default install there.
Quite some people were, when creating a new port
that depends on X11,
wandering whether to put it in X11BASE or
LOCALBASE. More than once a
question of whether the prefix /usr/X11R6 should
be just dropped or at least
only retained for core X11 distribution. With the
upcoming X.org 7.x ports
there is perhaps the opportunity to do the prefix
merger along that.
Moving X11 prefix to LOCALBASE would simplify
above dilemma. It would be also
more similar to where linux distributions are
going (at least Gentoo, Debian
and Fedora deprecated /usr/X11R6 in favour of /usr
which, while
not /usr/local is the location of where all
packages install - depending on
X11 or not). If I remember correctly from previous
discussions, it would be
more convenient to people with separate mounts for
installed packages as
well. /usr/local is also the default value for
--prefix configure option for
X.org packages.
So it is general intention to go with /usr/local
or rather ${LOCALBASE} as
prefix for X11 ports. If anyone feels that this is
horribly wrong, please
speak up.
On behalf of x11 team,
Dejan
What impact (if any) would the doubling or tripling
of the number of
files in ./bin have on searching along PATH? Would
we be shooting
ourselves in the foot if we did this?
jmc
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-x11
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-x11
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC: Merging X11BASE to LOCALBASE
Those man pages for whatis are pretty radically
different in size. Maybe they are mergeable, but
there's going to be a fair amount of work doing that
for all possible conflicts.
I don't have all the ports installed on my machine, so
this is not a complete list.
Fred
--- michael johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/12/06, Fred Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about duplicated file names?
On my desktop:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ ls -l
/usr/{X11R6,local}/man/whatis
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 162506 Jul 8 04:15
/usr/X11R6/man/whatis
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 48606 Jul 8 04:15
/usr/local/man/whatis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ ls -l
/usr/{X11R6,local}/share/applications/mimeinfo.cache
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 13 May 7 14:20
/usr/X11R6/share/applications/mimeinfo.cache
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 13 May 7 14:20
/usr/local/share/applications/mimeinfo.cache
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ ls -l
/usr/{X11R6,local}/share/mime/XMLnamespaces
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 0 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/X11R6/share/mime/XMLnamespaces
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 56 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/local/share/mime/XMLnamespaces
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ ls -l
/usr/{X11R6,local}/share/mime/aliases
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 0 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/X11R6/share/mime/aliases
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 2038 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/local/share/mime/aliases
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ ls -l
/usr/{X11R6,local}/share/mime/globs
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 92 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/X11R6/share/mime/globs
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 12850 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/local/share/mime/globs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ ls -l
/usr/{X11R6,local}/share/mime/magic
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 12 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/X11R6/share/mime/magic
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 11275 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/local/share/mime/magic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ ls -l
/usr/{X11R6,local}/share/mime/subclasses
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 0 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/X11R6/share/mime/subclasses
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 3202 Mar 26 00:05
/usr/local/share/mime/subclasses
alot of this could be merged, ie: all the .cache
files
are dynamicly updated when ports that have mime
info or have icons are installed or deinstall.
--- John Merryweather Cooper
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Dejan Lesjak wrote:
Hello,
There were a couple of debates already
concerning
/usr/X11R6 as prefix for X11
ports and a bunch of other ports that
currently by
default install there.
Quite some people were, when creating a new
port
that depends on X11,
wandering whether to put it in X11BASE or
LOCALBASE. More than once a
question of whether the prefix /usr/X11R6
should
be just dropped or at least
only retained for core X11 distribution. With
the
upcoming X.org 7.x ports
there is perhaps the opportunity to do the
prefix
merger along that.
Moving X11 prefix to LOCALBASE would simplify
above dilemma. It would be also
more similar to where linux distributions are
going (at least Gentoo, Debian
and Fedora deprecated /usr/X11R6 in favour of
/usr
which, while
not /usr/local is the location of where all
packages install - depending on
X11 or not). If I remember correctly from
previous
discussions, it would be
more convenient to people with separate mounts
for
installed packages as
well. /usr/local is also the default value for
--prefix configure option for
X.org packages.
So it is general intention to go with
/usr/local
or rather ${LOCALBASE} as
prefix for X11 ports. If anyone feels that
this is
horribly wrong, please
speak up.
On behalf of x11 team,
Dejan
What impact (if any) would the doubling or
tripling
of the number of
files in ./bin have on searching along PATH?
Would
we be shooting
ourselves in the foot if we did this?
jmc
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-x11
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-x11
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC: Merging X11BASE to LOCALBASE
michael johnson wrote:
On 7/12/06, Dejan Lesjak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
There were a couple of debates already concerning /usr/X11R6 as prefix
for
X11
ports and a bunch of other ports that currently by default install there.
Quite some people were, when creating a new port that depends on X11,
wandering whether to put it in X11BASE or LOCALBASE. More than once a
question of whether the prefix /usr/X11R6 should be just dropped or at
least
only retained for core X11 distribution. With the upcoming X.org 7.x
ports
there is perhaps the opportunity to do the prefix merger along that.
Moving X11 prefix to LOCALBASE would simplify above dilemma. It would be
also
more similar to where linux distributions are going (at least Gentoo,
Debian
and Fedora deprecated /usr/X11R6 in favour of /usr which, while
not /usr/local is the location of where all packages install - depending
on
X11 or not). If I remember correctly from previous discussions, it would
be
more convenient to people with separate mounts for installed packages as
well. /usr/local is also the default value for --prefix configure option
for
X.org packages.
So it is general intention to go with /usr/local or rather
${LOCALBASE} as
prefix for X11 ports. If anyone feels that this is horribly wrong, please
speak up.
I agree we should move a lot of software out of X11BASE but there
will need to be a lot of work (esp. for gnome). I'm curious of the
time frame in which xorg 7 will be committed to the tree? I'm not
speaking for the entire freebsd gnome team but if we did decide
to take on this task it would probably take several months to fully
test and get everything working well in LOCALBASE. I think the
major hurdle for us isn't moving everything to LOCALBASE it's
more of the upgrade path people will have to take, having to
rebuild all gnome components and all the bugs that will follow..
Michael
It should be possible to make a shell skript that seds through shell scripts,
moves everything around and fixes /var/db/pkg without having to rebuild
anything. I guess most things would just work that way.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC: Merging X11BASE to LOCALBASE
On 7/12/06, [LoN]Kamikaze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
michael johnson wrote:
On 7/12/06, Dejan Lesjak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
There were a couple of debates already concerning /usr/X11R6 as prefix
for
X11
ports and a bunch of other ports that currently by default install
there.
Quite some people were, when creating a new port that depends on X11,
wandering whether to put it in X11BASE or LOCALBASE. More than once a
question of whether the prefix /usr/X11R6 should be just dropped or at
least
only retained for core X11 distribution. With the upcoming X.org 7.x
ports
there is perhaps the opportunity to do the prefix merger along that.
Moving X11 prefix to LOCALBASE would simplify above dilemma. It would
be
also
more similar to where linux distributions are going (at least Gentoo,
Debian
and Fedora deprecated /usr/X11R6 in favour of /usr which, while
not /usr/local is the location of where all packages install -
depending
on
X11 or not). If I remember correctly from previous discussions, it
would
be
more convenient to people with separate mounts for installed packages
as
well. /usr/local is also the default value for --prefix configure
option
for
X.org packages.
So it is general intention to go with /usr/local or rather
${LOCALBASE} as
prefix for X11 ports. If anyone feels that this is horribly wrong,
please
speak up.
I agree we should move a lot of software out of X11BASE but there
will need to be a lot of work (esp. for gnome). I'm curious of the
time frame in which xorg 7 will be committed to the tree? I'm not
speaking for the entire freebsd gnome team but if we did decide
to take on this task it would probably take several months to fully
test and get everything working well in LOCALBASE. I think the
major hurdle for us isn't moving everything to LOCALBASE it's
more of the upgrade path people will have to take, having to
rebuild all gnome components and all the bugs that will follow..
Michael
It should be possible to make a shell skript that seds through shell
scripts, moves everything around and fixes /var/db/pkg without having to
rebuild anything. I guess most things would just work that way.
/var/db/pkg would be a problem, but the bigger problem for the
gnome ports is gnome is tied in to X11BASE as it stands now
and alot of things would break if part was in LOCALBASE
and part was in X11BASE so it would have to be moved
all at once.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC: Merging X11BASE to LOCALBASE
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 08:59:08PM -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 19:56 -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 04:48:39PM -0700, Fred Cox wrote: Those man pages for whatis are pretty radically different in size. Maybe they are mergeable, but there's going to be a fair amount of work doing that for all possible conflicts. They are generated files see makewhatis(1). There will probably be a few real conflicts, but it's unlikely to be a serious issue. It may be more serious than you think. Currently, GNOME and KDE will conflict with each other if this move happens. We will have to either come up with a new pseudo-port to handle common files, or find some other way of consolidating things. That should be a pretty easy thing to check out. Just installing GNOME and KDE on the same machine and then running: cat /var/db/pkg/*/+CONTENTS | sort | uniq -d would give a list of all potential duplicate files. Running pkg_which on those with both prefixes would give you all the conflicts after screening out generated files. It's certainly a real issue, but i double it's all that bad. It's not as though other projects haven't solved some version of this. -- Brooks pgp4zait5RHqa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFC: Merging X11BASE to LOCALBASE
On 7/13/06, Joe Marcus Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 19:56 -0500, Brooks Davis wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 04:48:39PM -0700, Fred Cox wrote:
Those man pages for whatis are pretty radically
different in size. Maybe they are mergeable, but
there's going to be a fair amount of work doing that
for all possible conflicts.
They are generated files see makewhatis(1). There will probably be a
few real conflicts, but it's unlikely to be a serious issue.
It may be more serious than you think. Currently, GNOME and KDE will
conflict with each other if this move happens. We will have to either
come up with a new pseudo-port to handle common files, or find some
other way of consolidating things.
That said, GNOME's move to LOCALBASE will not be too problematic. In
fact, the number of required patches might drop off. I'd be willing to
bet that if someone did X11BASE=${LOCALBASE} and installed GNOME on a
clean machine right now, it would work.
It does I tested this not long ago.
Joe
--
PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQBEtZrcb2iPiv4Uz4cRAkiZAKCTjKIrWaQ126Tmtj3lzeaFyrxcDQCfbazr
yvcwPt/GzkYx+THnJacuusQ=
=riRK
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
