Re: [Fink-devel] Who should Provide X11 ?
On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 05:12 AM, jeff whitaker wrote: Ben: Look at the archives - I wasn't just agreeing with myself. Jeez, I never thought I'd get so much grief for expressing an opinion. Anyway, since I'm clearly in the minority here's what I propose to do. Nevermind me, i just like to argue. 1) create a unified xfree86 package which installs both the libs and the rootles server (i.e. everything). 2) create little pseudo packages for xfree86-base(-shlibs) and xfree86-rootless(-shlibs) that do nothing but Depend on xfree86-(shlibs). This will provide an upgrade path if you already have a fink xfree86 package installed. I have no idea whether this will work - we'll see. Comments? There is another option, we could leave the packages as is, implement "reccomends" support in fink, and have xfree86-base reccomend rootless. Newbies would (hopefully :) choose the default. It would look like: Package xfree86-base reccomends these additional packages: xfree86-rootless Install them now? (Y/n) However this doesn't help apt-get and such, which don't prompt you for reccomends (dselect sort-of does, but the GUI is so horribly bad, newbies might not even notice :) So on second thought i think we should go to the one package method. We probably should just wait till 4.3 to do it, at which time we can also get rid of the -threaded packages, since 4.3 is threaded already. -Ben
Re: [Fink-devel] Who should Provide X11 ?
To reiterate the point that both Martin and I made earlier (to avoid potential confusion when people search the list archives), and just mentioned today on the OroborOSX list, too: OroborOSX requires you to have _all_ of XFree86. Its "private XDarwin" is just a replacement for XDarwin.app. On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 19:22, Joe Block wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On Monday, Jan 6, 2003, at 13:56 US/Eastern, Jeff Whitaker wrote: > > > I argue for leaving it as is. We indeed have had this discussion > > before, > > and the conclusion was that since there are lots of ways to use X11 > > apps > > without having xfree86-rootless installed, we should not move > > "Provides: > > x11" to xfree86-rootless. For example, you can run these apps > > remotely on > > a machine that does have an Xserver installed, or you can run them in > > Xvnc/Vncviewer, or you can run them in oroborus X (which has it's own > > XDarwin bundled in). Why force people to install xfree86-rootless if > > they > > don't really need to? > > Why not have a ouroborusx dummy package that provides X11 for those > people running OuroborosX? I think it's better for people who may not > be X11 gurus to have a default that leaves them with what they expect - > a system able to run package N when they do fink install N. > > jpb > - -- > Joe Block <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be > unpopular. > - Adlai Stevenson > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin) > > iD8DBQE+Gh3dyEXo8W2M9hsRAtoaAJ95n+9Dowt+YVu84EyYNsi3h2oThgCeOY0G > pc4Ei/kJEH2N7BcdxldeC/4= > =dVLg > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > > > --- > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! > http://www.vasoftware.com > ___ > Fink-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel > -- Alexander K. Hansen Associate Research Scientist, Columbia University visiting MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center Levitated Dipole Experiment 175 Albany Street, NW17-219 Cambridge, MA 02139-4213 --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Who should Provide X11 ?
On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 02:42 AM, Ben Hines wrote: The current situation causes a LOT of confusion for newbies. And for what - to save 4 megs of hard drive space. Thats silly. I agree, saving 4 megs out of 45 isn't really worth the amount of questions we get on the subject. No matter how many FAQ entries and big nasty warnings we could add, the truth is that they would be a band-aid on the fact that having them split is confusing, and gains very little. For every person that asks about some xfree86-related thing on the list, there's 4 or 5 that you don't see asking on the IRC channel. It's really a rather goofy usability issue that is easily solved. --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Who should Provide X11 ?
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Ben Hines wrote: > > On Monday, January 6, 2003, at 10:56 AM, Jeff Whitaker wrote: > > > I argue for leaving it as is. We indeed have had this discussion > > before, > > and the conclusion was that since there are lots of ways to use X11 > > apps > > without having xfree86-rootless installed, we should not move > > "Provides: > > > > I think that was YOUR conclusion, and you are the maintainer, so it > didn't happen. I disagreed then, and I still disagree, and it looks > like more people disagree now. > > The current situation causes a LOT of confusion for newbies. And for > what - to save 4 megs of hard drive space. Thats silly. > > -Ben Ben: Look at the archives - I wasn't just agreeing with myself. Jeez, I never thought I'd get so much grief for expressing an opinion. Anyway, since I'm clearly in the minority here's what I propose to do. 1) create a unified xfree86 package which installs both the libs and the rootles server (i.e. everything). 2) create little pseudo packages for xfree86-base(-shlibs) and xfree86-rootless(-shlibs) that do nothing but Depend on xfree86-(shlibs). This will provide an upgrade path if you already have a fink xfree86 package installed. I have no idea whether this will work - we'll see. Comments? -Jeff -- Jeffrey S. Whitaker Phone : (303)497-6313 NOAA/OAR/CDC R/CDC1FAX : (303)497-6449 325 BroadwayWeb : http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/~jsw Boulder, CO, USA 80305-3328 Office: Skaggs Research Cntr 1D-124 --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Who should Provide X11 ?
On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 04:09 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: Ther are a couple of different possiblities for where we pay... at the moment we save 4MB on the default install. This is not as trivial as people make out - my 6GB drive is generally full, and I actively look at anything over 1MB to see if I can get rid of it. Add to that the time to download (in Australia this is still surprisingly slow over phone lines, which is how I do it) and it is clear that it would be nice not to install this unnecessarily. One semi-hackish way to do this would be to make the server a BuildDepends. That way it would be installed afterwards, but it would be safely removable. --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Who should Provide X11 ?
Ther are a couple of different possiblities for where we pay... at the moment we save 4MB on the default install. This is not as trivial as people make out - my 6GB drive is generally full, and I actively look at anything over 1MB to see if I can get rid of it. Add to that the time to download (in Australia this is still surprisingly slow over phone lines, which is how I do it) and it is clear that it would be nice not to install this unnecessarily. On the other hand there are lots of people running fink who are not really good at understanding how the system works, and who are benefitting most from the fact that fink decides where to put the things in their directories so thhey don't end up with their usual mess of a desktop containing multiple copies of the same software because they are unable to manage it "properly". For these people the fact that they install a apckage and then it doesn't run is a pain. I think the best solution is to have the dependency on x11-server as a possibility, and make that the default for packages currently dependent on x11. After that it would be helpful for the expert few if maintainers provided a cut-down version of their package that didn't require the server, allowing people to easily save the 4MB. In practice I think the people who don't need the server tend to be people who could happily remove it by hand, whereas the people who do need it are often (in my experience 7 of 9) people who have no idea what to do when they haven't got the server. Meking the system easy for beginners and sufficiently flexible to support the needs of experts is far better than having something that only works for experts. This is a rationale for packaging in the first place - the time it saves expert users is nothing compared to the productivity it provides for novices. just my 2 bits... chaals On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: >[ Please forgive me if the tone is a little harsh; I'm stuck in front of > a Windoze box for the moment... ] > >> Sure you can think of scenarios where someone might want the X >> libraries installed and not the X server, but these are largely >> artificial. > >Erm, what?! I have at least 20 servers, of varios OS's, which have the X11 >base clients and X11 shared libraries in stalled, but no X11 server. No X >fonts, font servers, etc. either. > >Why would I? I don't even have a monitor on some of them; many are at >various data centers; etc. ssh -X forwards X11 to my workstation. > >> As people have pointed out you are only saving 5-10% of >> the size of the distribution by separating out the server and there > >For those of us with 10GB HDs, XFree takes some very real disk space! And >don't say that's silly --- it's what my slightly over a year old iBook has. >I have many servers with far less. > > > > >--- >This SF.NET email is sponsored by: >SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! >http://www.vasoftware.com >___ >Fink-devel mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel > -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles tel: +61 409 134 136 SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe fax(france): +33 4 92 38 78 22 Post: 21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australiaor W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Who should Provide X11 ?
[ Please forgive me if the tone is a little harsh; I'm stuck in front of a Windoze box for the moment... ] > Sure you can think of scenarios where someone might want the X > libraries installed and not the X server, but these are largely > artificial. Erm, what?! I have at least 20 servers, of varios OS's, which have the X11 base clients and X11 shared libraries in stalled, but no X11 server. No X fonts, font servers, etc. either. Why would I? I don't even have a monitor on some of them; many are at various data centers; etc. ssh -X forwards X11 to my workstation. > As people have pointed out you are only saving 5-10% of > the size of the distribution by separating out the server and there For those of us with 10GB HDs, XFree takes some very real disk space! And don't say that's silly --- it's what my slightly over a year old iBook has. I have many servers with far less. --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Who should Provide X11 ?
On Monday, January 6, 2003, at 10:56 AM, Jeff Whitaker wrote: I argue for leaving it as is. We indeed have had this discussion before, and the conclusion was that since there are lots of ways to use X11 apps without having xfree86-rootless installed, we should not move "Provides: I think that was YOUR conclusion, and you are the maintainer, so it didn't happen. I disagreed then, and I still disagree, and it looks like more people disagree now. The current situation causes a LOT of confusion for newbies. And for what - to save 4 megs of hard drive space. Thats silly. -Ben --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Who should Provide X11 ?
On Monday, January 6, 2003, at 05:13 PM, Torrey Lyons wrote: I haven't been lurking on fink-devel long enough to have insight into what the earlier debates on this were, but I have always found it strange that fink still separates the server from rest of XFree86. Sure you can think of scenarios where someone might want the X libraries installed and not the X server, but these are largely artificial. As people have pointed out you are only saving 5-10% of the size of the distribution by separating out the server and there is a very real complexity cost for doing so. There are other parts of the XFree86 distribution one might want to separate out as well that save even more space. Why is the server special? I agree with Torrey. We should get rid of -rootless. -Ben --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Who should Provide X11 ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday, Jan 6, 2003, at 13:56 US/Eastern, Jeff Whitaker wrote: I argue for leaving it as is. We indeed have had this discussion before, and the conclusion was that since there are lots of ways to use X11 apps without having xfree86-rootless installed, we should not move "Provides: x11" to xfree86-rootless. For example, you can run these apps remotely on a machine that does have an Xserver installed, or you can run them in Xvnc/Vncviewer, or you can run them in oroborus X (which has it's own XDarwin bundled in). Why force people to install xfree86-rootless if they don't really need to? Why not have a ouroborusx dummy package that provides X11 for those people running OuroborosX? I think it's better for people who may not be X11 gurus to have a default that leaves them with what they expect - a system able to run package N when they do fink install N. jpb - -- Joe Block <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular. - Adlai Stevenson -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQE+Gh3dyEXo8W2M9hsRAtoaAJ95n+9Dowt+YVu84EyYNsi3h2oThgCeOY0G pc4Ei/kJEH2N7BcdxldeC/4= =dVLg -END PGP SIGNATURE- --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Who should Provide X11 ?
At 9:25 PM +0100 1/6/03, Martin Costabel wrote: Bruce Korb wrote: Jeff Whitaker wrote: Why force people to install xfree86-rootless if they don't really need to? Because is solves real, multi-hour problems. The cost is very marginal: systems that need x-base and not x servers and their price is only a few minutes of install time. The disk space is only worth mentioning that it is sub-marginal. Yes, exactly. I haven't been lurking on fink-devel long enough to have insight into what the earlier debates on this were, but I have always found it strange that fink still separates the server from rest of XFree86. Sure you can think of scenarios where someone might want the X libraries installed and not the X server, but these are largely artificial. As people have pointed out you are only saving 5-10% of the size of the distribution by separating out the server and there is a very real complexity cost for doing so. There are other parts of the XFree86 distribution one might want to separate out as well that save even more space. Why is the server special? I think the reason is largely historical. Back in the XFree86 4.1.0 days there was no rootless X server, only a full screen one. There was, however, a rootless X server that mostly worked under development in the top of the XFree86 CVS tree. Christoph Pfisterer wanted fink users to be able to use the rootless X server from the top of the tree without having to worry about upgrading the libraries and everything else as well. Thus he separated the packages, which worked at the time. These days it does not even make sense to use an X server and libraries from different XFree86 tags because the server depends on the libraries. Today people either live with the last stable version or the cutting edge, but they upgrade server and libraries together. Since there is no longer any desire to update the server and the rest of XFree86 separately, keeping the two in separate packages seems to complicate things for no reason. --Torrey --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Who should Provide X11 ?
Bruce Korb wrote: Jeff Whitaker wrote: Why force people to install xfree86-rootless if they don't really need to? Because is solves real, multi-hour problems. The cost is very marginal: systems that need x-base and not x servers and their price is only a few minutes of install time. The disk space is only worth mentioning that it is sub-marginal. Yes, exactly. Another thing: Right now, any package that needs libgl will install xfree86-rootless, because this is what provides libgl. This is OK, but it shows that the need of an X server is not an argument here. BTW, OroborOSX does *not* work when xfree68-rootless is not installed. -- Martin --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Who should Provide X11 ?
Elaborating on Bruce Korb's point, if we look at the sizes of the debs: [ldx3:main/binary-darwin-powerpc/x11-system] hansen% ls -l total 47288 -rw-r--r--1 root admin 1684000 Dec 10 11:12 xfree86-base-threaded-shlibs_4.2.1.1-3_darwin-powerpc.deb -rw-r--r--1 root admin42540212 Dec 10 11:12 xfree86-base-threaded_4.2.1.1-3_darwin-powerpc.deb -rw-r--r--1 root admin 327472 Dec 10 11:12 xfree86-rootless-threaded-shlibs_4.2.1.1-3_darwin-powerpc.deb -rw-r--r--1 root admin 3866616 Dec 10 11:12 xfree86-rootless-threaded_4.2.1.1-3_darwin-powerpc.deb the -rootless packages add only around 4 megs to the 40+ of the -base, although I'm not sure if the proportionality is the same for the files as installed. For an interim solution: I'll add a FAQ entry, like Martin suggested. On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 13:56, Jeff Whitaker wrote: > On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Martin Costabel wrote: > > > > > Many (most) packages that need to run under X11 have a dependency on > > the virtual package x11. This is not enough to make them work. > > > > The x11 virtual package is provided by the xfree86-base package. The > > problem with this is that when xfree86 is compiled and installed as a > > result of this dependency on x11, *only* xfree86-base and as its > > dependency, xfree86-base-shlibs are installed. The other two packages, > > xfree86-rootless and its *-shlibs are not installed, although they > > contain the X server and without them nothing works. > > > > So every poor beginner falls automatically into this trap. He compiles > > for 3 hours and then it tells him that "no X server is in your PATH". I > > had this myself recently on a newly installed system: "fink install > > scilab", 4 hours of compilation, and then it doesn't work. > > > > Either the "Provides: x11" has to be shifted from *-base to *-rootless, > > or the packages that really need X11 windows and not just some of the > > libraries, must depend on something else, maybe another virtual package > > 'xserver' that is provided by xfree86-rootless (and by system-xfree86). > > > > > I argue for leaving it as is. We indeed have had this discussion before, > and the conclusion was that since there are lots of ways to use X11 apps > without having xfree86-rootless installed, we should not move "Provides: > x11" to xfree86-rootless. For example, you can run these apps remotely on > a machine that does have an Xserver installed, or you can run them in > Xvnc/Vncviewer, or you can run them in oroborus X (which has it's own > XDarwin bundled in). Why force people to install xfree86-rootless if they > don't really need to? (Actually, unless things have changed since last I made the attempt, OroborOSX does require xfree86-rootless* to be installed: its XDarwin is apparently only a replacement for /Applications/XDarwin.app) > > -Jeff > > -- > Jeffrey S. Whitaker Phone : (303)497-6313 > NOAA/OAR/CDC R/CDC1FAX : (303)497-6449 > 325 BroadwayWeb : http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/~jsw > Boulder, CO, USA 80305-3328 Office: Skaggs Research Cntr 1D-124 > > > > --- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > ___ > Fink-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel > -- Alexander K. Hansen Associate Research Scientist, Columbia University visiting MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center Levitated Dipole Experiment 175 Albany Street, NW17-219 Cambridge, MA 02139-4213 --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Who should Provide X11 ?
David wrote: please keep in mind, that this is a VERY important decision. As the documentation maintainer I will have to make sure that every reference to X11 is then changed to the new name and that consistency is provided throughout the whole documentation. What the documentation maintainer could do right now without any further delay is to write a big fat FAQ entry about the present situation. "no X server in PATH"? -> Make sure that xfree86-rootless is installed. -- Martin --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Who should Provide X11 ?
I think the goal is to do better than this - to have an explicit dependency on the server for the many packages that need it. So there is (for example) x11 provided by x-base, and there is x11-server provided by x-rootless. If people package things that may or may not need a server they can make different versions - but I think most people running X-based packages will do so locally and want both the base and server. For beginners it is clearer if everything happens automatically, rather than getting a message they don't understand and thinking there is something wrong with the system. This shouldn't stop people who want to be able to factor out the server from doing so. Chaals On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Bruce Korb wrote: >Jeff Whitaker wrote: > >> Why force people to install xfree86-rootless if they >> don't really need to? > >Because is solves real, multi-hour problems. The cost is very >marginal: systems that need x-base and not x servers and their >price is only a few minutes of install time. The disk space is >only worth mentioning that it is sub-marginal. > > >--- >This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek >Welcome to geek heaven. >http://thinkgeek.com/sf >___ >Fink-devel mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel > -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles tel: +61 409 134 136 SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe fax(france): +33 4 92 38 78 22 Post: 21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australiaor W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Who should Provide X11 ?
Jeff Whitaker wrote: > Why force people to install xfree86-rootless if they > don't really need to? Because is solves real, multi-hour problems. The cost is very marginal: systems that need x-base and not x servers and their price is only a few minutes of install time. The disk space is only worth mentioning that it is sub-marginal. --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Who should Provide X11 ?
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Martin Costabel wrote: > > Many (most) packages that need to run under X11 have a dependency on > the virtual package x11. This is not enough to make them work. > > The x11 virtual package is provided by the xfree86-base package. The > problem with this is that when xfree86 is compiled and installed as a > result of this dependency on x11, *only* xfree86-base and as its > dependency, xfree86-base-shlibs are installed. The other two packages, > xfree86-rootless and its *-shlibs are not installed, although they > contain the X server and without them nothing works. > > So every poor beginner falls automatically into this trap. He compiles > for 3 hours and then it tells him that "no X server is in your PATH". I > had this myself recently on a newly installed system: "fink install > scilab", 4 hours of compilation, and then it doesn't work. > > Either the "Provides: x11" has to be shifted from *-base to *-rootless, > or the packages that really need X11 windows and not just some of the > libraries, must depend on something else, maybe another virtual package > 'xserver' that is provided by xfree86-rootless (and by system-xfree86). > I argue for leaving it as is. We indeed have had this discussion before, and the conclusion was that since there are lots of ways to use X11 apps without having xfree86-rootless installed, we should not move "Provides: x11" to xfree86-rootless. For example, you can run these apps remotely on a machine that does have an Xserver installed, or you can run them in Xvnc/Vncviewer, or you can run them in oroborus X (which has it's own XDarwin bundled in). Why force people to install xfree86-rootless if they don't really need to? -Jeff -- Jeffrey S. Whitaker Phone : (303)497-6313 NOAA/OAR/CDC R/CDC1FAX : (303)497-6449 325 BroadwayWeb : http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/~jsw Boulder, CO, USA 80305-3328 Office: Skaggs Research Cntr 1D-124 --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Who should Provide X11 ?
On 6 Jan 2003, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: >> "David" == David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >David> Hello guys, > >David> please keep in mind, that this is a VERY important decision. As the >David> documentation maintainer I will have to make sure that every reference >David> to X11 is then changed to the new name > >No, that'd be the *wrong* thing. I need "x11" to compile ImageMagick, >and it would be nice to have the server installed for a couple of the >tools, but I can use "convert" just fine without the server running. > >Although it is monday morning, so I may not be following this very >well. :) I think this is why the question is important. We can pick a default that does little real damage, like saying that xfree86-rootless provides x11 instead of -base, and then slowly go through the packages picking out applications that don't need the server. Or add the "server" dependency to the packages that do need it. But we can't rely on doing a simple copy/paste and getting it right. Which means that the sooner done the fewer packages there are to look at :) chaals --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Who should Provide X11 ?
> "David" == David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> How about "x11-server"? >> >> David> Hello guys, David> please keep in mind, that this is a VERY important decision. As the David> documentation maintainer I will have to make sure that every reference David> to X11 is then changed to the new name No, that'd be the *wrong* thing. I need "x11" to compile ImageMagick, and it would be nice to have the server installed for a couple of the tools, but I can use "convert" just fine without the server running. Although it is monday morning, so I may not be following this very well. :) -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training! --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Who should Provide X11 ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 How about "x11-server"? Hello guys, please keep in mind, that this is a VERY important decision. As the documentation maintainer I will have to make sure that every reference to X11 is then changed to the new name and that consistency is provided throughout the whole documentation. so please pick a feasible term ;) - -d - - Face me and you shall surely perish. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQE+GcThiW/Ta/pxHPQRA+vuAJ9p+sDfkgYAXH5y4rBS4aCECo9yXQCeLAhN +qAvC+T8jr0wqqstvhoqP4M= =2Hpb -END PGP SIGNATURE- --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Who should Provide X11 ?
> "Martin" == Martin Costabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Martin> Either the "Provides: x11" has to be shifted from *-base to Martin> *-rootless, or the packages that really need X11 windows and not just Martin> some of the libraries, must depend on something else, maybe another Martin> virtual package 'xserver' that is provided by xfree86-rootless (and by Martin> system-xfree86). I might get "xserver" confused with "Xserver", since Apple seems to have chosen that name now. How about "x11-server"? And also note that a server is generally not needed to *build* a product, just *run* it. But there may be the few cases where it's needed to *build* it, so be careful where you put that. As long as you don't call it "X-Windows" [1] over my dead body... :) [1] c.f. "man X" -> The X Consortium requests that the following names be used when referring to this software: X X Window System X Version 11 X Window System, Version 11 X11 -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training! --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
[Fink-devel] Who should Provide X11 ?
I think this has been discussed before, but it has come up again a lot lately: Many (most) packages that need to run under X11 have a dependency on the virtual package x11. This is not enough to make them work. The x11 virtual package is provided by the xfree86-base package. The problem with this is that when xfree86 is compiled and installed as a result of this dependency on x11, *only* xfree86-base and as its dependency, xfree86-base-shlibs are installed. The other two packages, xfree86-rootless and its *-shlibs are not installed, although they contain the X server and without them nothing works. So every poor beginner falls automatically into this trap. He compiles for 3 hours and then it tells him that "no X server is in your PATH". I had this myself recently on a newly installed system: "fink install scilab", 4 hours of compilation, and then it doesn't work. Either the "Provides: x11" has to be shifted from *-base to *-rootless, or the packages that really need X11 windows and not just some of the libraries, must depend on something else, maybe another virtual package 'xserver' that is provided by xfree86-rootless (and by system-xfree86). -- Martin --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
