Subject: Re: Locations of some packages baffles me
To: John Darrow <John.P.Darrow@wheaton.edu>
From: Frederick Bruckman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/28/2001 15:16:53
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, John Darrow wrote:
> 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.
/usr/xsrc has always been a step-child. It violates our release(7)
policy, and it uses it's own build system. You can thank "imake" for
/usr/X11R6, and for the fact that third (fourth?) party binaries
install there, too. On the other hand, there's a certain beauty in the
fact that you can dowload xsrc from XFree86 (or even DRI!) and it will
build out-of-the-box on NetBSD, and not act any different from the
distributed X binaries.
> 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'm thinking "things that require the x sets to run", so yes, that
means getting rid of USE_X11.
> 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...
"imake" predates the package system. You gotta love it. ;-)