Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/term?

[Aron Griffis <agriffis@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1752 bytes --]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:	[Fri Mar 11 2005, 10:36:51PM EST]
> > How about making a local USE "xterm" for xorg-x11, then adding it to
> > the default list?  Then such users can USE=-xterm and they'll be all
> > set.
> 
> I've already elaborated on how we provide a complete X implementation as
> upstream does. We've just taken the liberty of splitting it out into two
> separate ebuilds, one for xterm and one for everything else.
> 
> A terminal emulator is not considered an optional part of a complete X
> implementation. I'm willing to deviate from that by saying any emulator
> could be acceptable rather than just xterm, but perhaps that was a bad idea.

virtual/term implies that gnome-terminal and konsole are a replacement
for xterm.  That is hard to swallow since they can be more easily
broken by library snafus.

Since your goal is to provide as complete an X implementation as
upstream, I think that in order to implement virtual/term you would
also need to create an "xterm" symlink to the current terminal
emulator.  That would require making the various virtual/terms
conflict with each other... probably not what anybody wants!

IMHO there are only two ways to solve this: 

    1. maintain the complete X distribution, PDEPEND on xterm, ignore
       the whining, or

    2. create some local USE flags for xorg-x11 that restrict the
       binaries installed.  One USE flag could control installation of
       xterm, another could prevent misc programs like oclock, xeyes,
       xbiff, xcalc, xedit, etc.

Choosing #1 is definitely ok, since there are Gentoo ways of solving
the problem, as one astute user mentioned in the bug report

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]