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 j2C3ejfK013856 for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2005 03:40:45 GMT Received: from c-67-171-150-177.client.comcast.net ([67.171.150.177] helo=[192.168.1.106]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1D9xUa-0002Il-L5 for gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org; Sat, 12 Mar 2005 03:40:44 +0000 Message-ID: <423263D3.4000304@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:36:51 -0800 From: Donnie Berkholz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050203) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en 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 To: gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/term? References: <42313E70.5020700@gentoo.org> <20050312023526.GA20707@time.flatmonk.org> In-Reply-To: <20050312023526.GA20707@time.flatmonk.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 2fcda27e-ebf5-4c32-8678-49a3ef8330fc X-Archives-Hash: e85cebb348f403482987a4a89b0676af -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Aron Griffis wrote: > That bug is complaining that xterm is installed, and requests that it > not be necessary. I don't see how this leads to virtual/term, > though. After all, they didn't request Gentoo to make sure there is > a terminal installed. You are correct that this wasn't the request. It was a potential solution to that request that had previously been discussed among X folks as a solution to the problem that people had another terminal emulator and didn't want two. > 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. Thanks, Donnie -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCMmPSXVaO67S1rtsRAr85AJ4hvb344uTV2dg5gBcv0xO7gc04jACgjdCe WIcWI0YClEULIKPtMNIrapk= =SWM5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list