Subject: Re: nox11 vs x11
To: Jan Schaumann <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jeremy C. Reed <email@example.com>
Date: 06/07/2003 11:31:42
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003, Jan Schaumann wrote:
> I think we should standardize on the naming of packages wrt to "-nox11"
> vs "-x11". Currently, we have several packages that have a "-nox11"
> equivalent indicating that this package builds without X11, and others
> with "-x11" equivalents. It would be less confusing if we would have a
> default and then say for packages that may either work with or without
> the naming is always "<package name>" for _with_ X11 support and
> "<package name>-nox11" without.
I don't think we should have a default.
Some packages are known to provide X11 support in their default install;
so the package that has that disabled would be -nox11.
Then some software is known is not provide X11 support (by default), so
then a package that has been specially configured to add the X11 support
would be named -x11.
Maybe someone can look at the following and look at defaults. (Probably
can't rely on pkgsrc Makefiles, because they may force "--with-x" or
"--without-x11" even if that's the default.)
Jeremy C. Reed
p.s. On a related note: I don't see NO_X11 defined in any docs.
And then I think that groff shouldn't default to need X because of
mk/ghostscript.mk defaults to it.