Subject: Re: xpkgwedge vs. USE_X11 vs. ?
To: Hubert Feyrer <>
From: Tim Rightnour <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 07/31/1998 00:07:43
On 31-Jul-98 Hubert Feyrer spoke unto us all:
# > Two different variables would help here - one that just says "uses X11" and
# > one that says "needs to be installed with X11 distribution directories," if
# > xpkgwedge were not in use.  The latter would probably be needed most for
# > pkgs which install includes and libraries.
#  The latter's what's already in (but not in pkg_add) to stop
#  things happening if there's no X installed. 
# > USE_X11 for the former and USE_X11BASE for the latter?  (USE_X11 would not
# > set PREFIX to X11BASE, whereas USE_X11BASE would--if xpkgwedge were not in 
# > use.)
#  If I understand things right so far, the only thing USE_X11 is left to do
#  after  all these changes is to switch to the X mtree file. Maybe we should
#  make this only for USE_X11BASE and nuke off USE_X11 altogether?

I would much rather USE_X11BASE switched to the X mtree file..  USE_X11 should
just be a dependency note of sorts..

My original concept was that USE_X11 was just a note to the pkg_system that
"hey, this package requires you to have X installed,,  don't waste your time
downloading this massive tarball, and compiling it, when it's just going to
blow up and not work"

This avoids the rampant stupidity where I type make in the pkgsrc root and it
goes and downloads tk80 (and *all* the tk requiring programs) and goes "clunk"
on each and every one of them.  There are other much better uses for this as
well.. things like gnuplot which can realisticly be stuffed into /usr/pkg and
be perfectly happy with its life there. (there are many more.. I'm sure)

I just firmly believe if you need X, and you don't have it.. it shouldnt even
bother trying.  Obviously this person doesn't have it for a reason.. maybe its
a headless box.

Tim Rightnour    -