Subject: Re: Locations of some packages baffles me
To: John Darrow <>
From: Greywolf <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 06/28/2001 12:17:46
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, John Darrow wrote:

# >Okay, I didn't realise that xpkgwedge was an issue in this.  All I knew
# >was that if we were going to mix X11 stuff in ${LOCALBASE}, why have
# >${LOCALBASE} at all?
# Try turning that around:
# If we're going to mix stuff that just happens to use x11 libraries but
# comes from pkgsrc, with the X11 system itself that comes from /usr/xsrc,
# then why have LOCALBASE at all?  Why not just mix "non-x11" pkgsrc stuff
# into /usr/bin with the rest of the system binaries?
# That way lies madness.  (or Linux.)

Yes, I know this, which is why I don't advocate such an approach, and
I didn't mean to advocate such.

# IMHO, /usr/X11R6 should be treated as part of the base system, just like
# /usr/bin, etc.  It comes that way, it is installed as part of the base
# system install (by sysinst, not by pkg_add - future possible packaging
# not withstanding), and is rebuilt out of /usr/xsrc, using source which
# we've imported into our CVS tree - _not_ /usr/pkgsrc, which pulls down
# outside sources on its own.

To a point, I agree.  However, see below.

# Packages are packages.  Where do we draw the line as to what goes in
# X11BASE?  "X11-like" libraries?  "X11-like" binaries?  Anything that
# even touches a single file in X11BASE?  Emacs has an X11 interface
# (along with its text interface), should it go in X11BASE?  (e.g.
# should we just get rid of USE_X11 completely and always do USE_X11BASE?)

I partially agree -- the line is blurry in some cases.  In others it's as
plain as the zit in the middle of a teenager's face just before a big

# Frankly... I think that separating the packages into two categories
# (X11BASE and non-X11BASE) was a bad idea in the first place, and that
# it's even necessary to use something like xpkgwedge to get them back
# together the way they should be is sad...

Take this as you will, but if it is an X thing, it should go into the X
tree.  It's where I'd expect to find such things.  Historically -- and
maybe I'm being a dinosaur, here -- this was the way it was laid out
at most places I worked, and it made sense.  So I think I disagree with
you on this point, but it's not a hard disagreement (minds are prone
to change over time).

Regarding xemacs, for me personally, it's a moot point since I don't
use it; however, the way we had it installed was in /usr/X11R${XRELEASE}/bin
with a link to it named "emacs" in /usr/local/bin.  At least that was the
way I think it was installed since isn't xemacs just emacs with X support
compiled in and called at runtime depending on whether or not it's called
as 'xemacs' and other similar X11-determination trickery?

# jdarrow

Microsoft:	"Where do you want to go today?"
Linux:		"Where do you want to be tomorrow?"
NetBSD:		"Are you guys coming, or what?"