On 22 May 2006, Jacob Meuser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 02:52:59PM +0300, Liviu Daia wrote:
> > On 22 May 2006, Jacob Meuser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:27:18PM +0300, Liviu Daia wrote:
> > > > On 20 May 2006, Jacob Meuser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 10:09:15AM +0300, Liviu Daia wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have a simpler question: is there any plan to make
> > > > > > installing xbase a requirement in the foreseeable future?
> > > > >
> > > > > no. nothing in {base,comp,man,misc,game,etc}XX.tgz depends on
> > > > > anything from xbaseXX.tgz, and that is extremely unlikely to
> > > > > ever change.
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > Ok, let me rephrase this. How realistic will be to run an
> > > > OpenBSD firewall or router without xbase a few years from now?
> > >
> > > it will be just as it is now: you do't need xbase as long as you
> > > aren't also installing packages that depend on something from
> > > xbase.
> >
> > This is not how things used to be for many years,
>
> beg pardon? please show me when and where.
Building the no_x11 flavor of ports didn't use to require xbase.
AFAICT, 3.9 is the first release when that happens. If it did happen
earlier, I was lucky enough to miss it.
> > and it does make a difference if no_x11 flavors are being slowly
> > phased out.
>
[...]
>
> doesn't appear to be any phasing-out trend to me.
They are receiving less support. According to Steven Mestdagh:
On 22 May 2006, steven mestdagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...]
> Clearly, this no_x11 stuff has a low priority.
[...]
Which is why I was asking if the actual intention behind all this is
to phase them out.
Regards,
Liviu Daia
--
Dr. Liviu Daia http://www.imar.ro/~daia
