Subject: Re: getting x11
To: Frederick Bruckman <email@example.com>
From: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/13/2004 13:07:50
[Thus spake Frederick Bruckman ("FB: ") Yesterday...]
FB: What are you saying? That the NetBSD reachover build ignores "site.def"?
FB: Of course it does -- "site.def" is for "imake". If you want to set stuff
FB: in "host.def" or "site.def" and do a "make World" in ".../xc", that *did*
FB: work the last time I tried it. Some of the new X servers have not been
FB: integrated with the out-of-the-box build, as far as I can tell, but they
FB: should just be ignored. If we've broken the "make World" build, I'd say
FB: that's a bug, but I suspect not.
I guess I'm baffled as to why the NetBSD reachover ignores any attempts
to put X11 someplace else. I'll have to go digging.
I'm perfectly content to leave the base placement of stuff alone -- i.e.
I don't want everything in /bin, or /usr/lib -> /libraries or any other
such silliness. Deciding where I was going to put X, however, was
always a stickingpoint.
FB: never ran into a build problem. The one significant difference between
FB: our build and their build, is that their "xdm" doesn't support "xdmauth"
FB: without patching as directed (which NetBSD has done).
This, I must say is a nicety!
FB: This "reachover build" had been on the wish list for a long time.
I'm quite aware of *why* we have the reachover build, and I _do_ perceive
it as a Very Good Thing! I was just taken by surprise when my directives
for placement were ignored when I tweaked them in the canonical places.
FB: lukem and rtr committed all this in September 2003, by the way, with
FB: no objections, so it's not like this is a live issue.
Please do not consider this an objection! I have no real "complaints",
and I'm very sorry for having made my gripe sound like such. I'm very
thankful for the fact that we can do this, so my profound thanks are
extended to everyone who made it possible.