| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Aron Griffis wrote: |
| 5 |
> That bug is complaining that xterm is installed, and requests that it |
| 6 |
> not be necessary. I don't see how this leads to virtual/term, |
| 7 |
> though. After all, they didn't request Gentoo to make sure there is |
| 8 |
> a terminal installed. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
You are correct that this wasn't the request. It was a potential |
| 11 |
solution to that request that had previously been discussed among X |
| 12 |
folks as a solution to the problem that people had another terminal |
| 13 |
emulator and didn't want two. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> How about making a local USE "xterm" for xorg-x11, then adding it to |
| 16 |
> the default list? Then such users can USE=-xterm and they'll be all |
| 17 |
> set. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I've already elaborated on how we provide a complete X implementation as |
| 20 |
upstream does. We've just taken the liberty of splitting it out into two |
| 21 |
separate ebuilds, one for xterm and one for everything else. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
A terminal emulator is not considered an optional part of a complete X |
| 24 |
implementation. I'm willing to deviate from that by saying any emulator |
| 25 |
could be acceptable rather than just xterm, but perhaps that was a bad idea. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Thanks, |
| 28 |
Donnie |
| 29 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 30 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
iD8DBQFCMmPSXVaO67S1rtsRAr85AJ4hvb344uTV2dg5gBcv0xO7gc04jACgjdCe |
| 33 |
WIcWI0YClEULIKPtMNIrapk= |
| 34 |
=SWM5 |
| 35 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives