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
