Subject: Re: getting x11
To: Greywolf <email@example.com>
From: James Chacon <jmc@NetBSD.org>
Date: 12/13/2004 15:17:54
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 01:07:50PM -0800, Greywolf wrote:
> [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.
Because no part of the main src tree allows you to reroot sections of
your install? Like I said before, name another knob you can turn that lets
you put..say manpages somewhere else?
It's part of the main source tree and it has assumptions on what it's building
so that a complete release can be built from one place and you can get all
the way to the end tarballs. As apposed to old releases where we had to find
people will all the various archs/hw to get them to build X natively.
> 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.
Then build from xsrc directly and customize to your hearts content.
> 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.
> FB: Why...?
> 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.
Because those aren't used anymore than adding --prefix to the gnu configure
scripts in gnu/dist would be used by the build.