From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j2CGV8sn004070 for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:31:08 GMT Received: from outbound4.mail.tds.net ([216.170.230.94]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DA9W6-0006Sy-Mv for gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org; Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:31:06 +0000 Received: from piment.flatmonk.org (h69-21-250-248.69-21.unk.tds.net [69.21.250.248]) by outbound4.mail.tds.net (8.12.10/8.12.2) with ESMTP id j2CGV6NG000661 for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:31:06 -0600 (CST) Received: by piment.flatmonk.org (Postfix, from userid 10208) id 3F49A113EAE; Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:31:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:30:19 -0500 X-OfflineIMAP-x1137468874-70696d656e7473656e64-494e424f582e4f7574626f78: 1110645064-0342402267891-v4.0.8 From: Aron Griffis To: gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/term? Message-ID: <20050312163019.GD20707@time.flatmonk.org> References: <42313E70.5020700@gentoo.org> <20050312023526.GA20707@time.flatmonk.org> <423263D3.4000304@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: , , List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pZs/OQEoSSbxGlYw" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <423263D3.4000304@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: b71e6b2e-2741-4146-9318-90a32933dc1e X-Archives-Hash: 7a1fc972284a4cd7afabc1c25e3e11b5 --pZs/OQEoSSbxGlYw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=3D-xterm and they'll be all > > set. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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 id= ea. 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:=20 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 --pZs/OQEoSSbxGlYw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCMxkbJrHF4yAQTrARApXsAKC7R83eWw7kBH+qDUQOZ1NcodZIvQCeIIdi XzLM6DNrMaXMwEmRljgpUfk= =wcu+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pZs/OQEoSSbxGlYw-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list