On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Greg A. Woods wrote:

> [ On Thursday, June 28, 2001 at 15:16:53 (-0500), Frederick Bruckman wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: Locations of some packages baffles me
> >
> > /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.
>
> That begs the question of why X11 isn't just a pkgsrc module itself.

"xsrc" was created before "pkgsrc" was. The decision was made before I
became interested in NetBSD, but there it is.

> Just because there's a custom NetBSD-specific distribution of it doesn't
> mean it shouldn't be treated only as a pkg.
>
> Maybe there'd be separate pkgsrc/x11/base-nbsd and pkgsrc/x11/base-xfree
> so that the i386-only folks could choose other compatible distributions,
> and of course a pkgsrc/x11/base-xorg for us purists.....

"pkgsrc" packages seems like a bit much to me -- we already have two
complete X distributions in the tree. The master plan here, as I
understand it, is to go with pkgized base/x sets, so you you can use
pkg_* to upgrade your whole system.  You would create the pkgized (x)
sets the same way you make the x sets, now, from within "xsrc".

> Speaking of which, I've downloaded X11R6.6 and plan to give it a go on
> my i386 and sparc machines....  If I were to try to pkg-ize it would
> that be seen as a good idea?

Interesting. I'll pass on that package thing. I really don't see that
happening. It might better be a candidate for import into xsrc/xc.


Frederick