Bug#53759: revision of the "to build with X support or not" policy

2000-01-05 Thread Greg Stark
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 01:39:34PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > I'm not going to second this proposal. > > > > I think that it misses the real issue in favor of a rhetorical position. > > I disagree. The rationale for this proposal was twofold: >

Re: Bug#53759: revision of the "to build with X support or not" policy

2000-01-04 Thread Branden Robinson
On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 05:07:37PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: > Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > I put > > > > export X_AUTHORITY=/home/jgg/.Xauthority > > > > in my .xsession - this environment variable is not cleared when you 'su' > > so you can use X programs as root without any problems. Maybe the de

Re: Bug#53759: revision of the "to build with X support or not" policy

2000-01-04 Thread Joey Hess
Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On 3 Jan 2000, Andreas Voegele wrote: > > > I'm using vim very often after becoming super-user with su. If vim was > > linked against X, I would always get an error message on startup > > because root isn't authorized to connect to the X server. > > I put > > export

Re: Bug#53759: revision of the "to build with X support or not" policy

2000-01-03 Thread Jason Gunthorpe
On 3 Jan 2000, Andreas Voegele wrote: > I'm using vim very often after becoming super-user with su. If vim was > linked against X, I would always get an error message on startup > because root isn't authorized to connect to the X server. I put export X_AUTHORITY=/home/jgg/.Xauthority in my .x

Bug#53759: revision of the "to build with X support or not" policy

2000-01-03 Thread Andreas Voegele
> Several packages already flagrantly violate policy by shipping > versions with and without X support; vim is one, gom is another. I'm using vim very often after becoming super-user with su. If vim was linked against X, I would always get an error message on startup because root isn't au

Bug#53759: revision of the "to build with X support or not" policy

2000-01-02 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 01:39:34PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > I'm not going to second this proposal. > > I think that it misses the real issue in favor of a rhetorical position. I disagree. The rationale for this proposal was twofold: 1) Several packages already flagrantly violate policy by sh

Bug#53759: revision of the "to build with X support or not" policy

2000-01-02 Thread Raul Miller
I'm not going to second this proposal. I think that it misses the real issue in favor of a rhetorical position. I think that the real reason a package should be built without X support has to do with the nature of that X support. If the support is buggy, or loses functionality which would be ava