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
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
