| 1 |
Donnie Berkholz wrote: [Fri Mar 11 2005, 10:36:51PM EST] |
| 2 |
> > How about making a local USE "xterm" for xorg-x11, then adding it to |
| 3 |
> > the default list? Then such users can USE=-xterm and they'll be all |
| 4 |
> > set. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I've already elaborated on how we provide a complete X implementation as |
| 7 |
> upstream does. We've just taken the liberty of splitting it out into two |
| 8 |
> separate ebuilds, one for xterm and one for everything else. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> A terminal emulator is not considered an optional part of a complete X |
| 11 |
> implementation. I'm willing to deviate from that by saying any emulator |
| 12 |
> could be acceptable rather than just xterm, but perhaps that was a bad idea. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
virtual/term implies that gnome-terminal and konsole are a replacement |
| 15 |
for xterm. That is hard to swallow since they can be more easily |
| 16 |
broken by library snafus. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Since your goal is to provide as complete an X implementation as |
| 19 |
upstream, I think that in order to implement virtual/term you would |
| 20 |
also need to create an "xterm" symlink to the current terminal |
| 21 |
emulator. That would require making the various virtual/terms |
| 22 |
conflict with each other... probably not what anybody wants! |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
IMHO there are only two ways to solve this: |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
1. maintain the complete X distribution, PDEPEND on xterm, ignore |
| 27 |
the whining, or |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
2. create some local USE flags for xorg-x11 that restrict the |
| 30 |
binaries installed. One USE flag could control installation of |
| 31 |
xterm, another could prevent misc programs like oclock, xeyes, |
| 32 |
xbiff, xcalc, xedit, etc. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Choosing #1 is definitely ok, since there are Gentoo ways of solving |
| 35 |
the problem, as one astute user mentioned in the bug report |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Regards, |
| 38 |
Aron |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
Aron Griffis |
| 42 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives