On Apr 25, 2007, at 5:08 PM, Yves de Champlain wrote:
*delurk*
Being curious by nature, what does this mean ?
It means he's no longer lurking.
I'd like to eventually submit these for inclusion in MacPorts to replace the broken xorg port that currently exists. As it stands, I wasn't able to figure out how to build more than one module (each of which needs a separate configure / make / make install step) per portfile, so I have dozens of dozens of portfiles out there. Building a replacement for X11.app takes > 200 modules, and I don't really want to dump that many portfiles into the main collection.
Being curious by nature, isn't it the goal of modular x11, to be be modular ? just asking.
As Ben pointed out, there's modular and then there's insane. I don't think we want 200 ports just for X11 and Ben is not suggesting that he wants to maintain that many, either (that would be insanity + insanity). I think the break-down he's proposed is a good compromise between modular and manageable and, given that we have absolutely no X.org port maintainer at all, a significant improvement over where we are now! - Jordan