Upcoming X.org release and splitting packages

[Harold L Hunt II]

Frédéric L. W. Meunier wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> 
> 
>>Thomas Dickey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>However, I do make xterm patches more frequently than XFree86 releases
>>>occur - that's simply a matter of 60,000 lines of code compared to 3
>>>million...
>>
>>I think this is reason alone for it to be a separate package.
>>
>>I have this built as a Cygwin package using the default configure
>>options at the moment.  The only patch required was to Makefile.in
>>(attached) to get it to stop appending .exe to the uxterm shell script.
>>
>>Thomas, can you recommend any configure options we should be using?  I
>>can think that the following might be useful:
>>
>>--enable-toolbar
>>--enable-wide-chars
>>--with-Xaw3d
>>
>>Any thoughts?
> 
> 
> I think most are enabled by default. On Linux I only added
> --with-terminal-type=xterm-xfree86 --enable-256-color
> --enable-load-vt-fonts --disable-tek4014 --enable-toolbar
> --disable-vt52 --enable-luit.

I'll have to see about those later... --enable-256-color sounds safe though.

> --with-terminal-type=xterm-xfree86 was just so I wouldn't get
> it set to xterm by default (lynx etc are black and white with
> it).

I'm not sure this would be a good idea to change the default if we were 
not doing this before anyway.  Then again, I would rather defer 
judgement on this one to someone with more knowledge on this subject.

> --disable-tek4014 --disable-vt52 seems to be recommend because
> it adds bloat and only a few people use it.

Might not be a bad idea, but the .exe is only 233 KiB at the moment.  It 
isn't exactly bloated.  :)

> You can presumably replace the xc/program/xterm/ with
> xterm-185/ and the make World will use it.

The idea here was to break xterm into its own package so it can be 
updated with more frequency and possibly handed off to someone else for 
maintenance.  I have done this with the new 'xterm' package in 
setup.exe... should hit mirrors by tomorrow.

> I don't think --with-Xaw3d is worth, as it adds another
> dependency.

Yes, that is why I guess I won't enable it for now.

Harold