+system_x11 to bite the dust

[David Evans]

Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
> So, the MacPorts-provided X11 libs should be regression free over what 
> is installed in any x11prefix.  The hardware-rendering libGL was the 
> last nail, and that's been fairly stable for the past 1-2 months.
>
> Can we successfully nuke the backwards-compatible system_x11 variant 
> now?  If any cares to answer "no," then you also need to explain why, 
> so I can make sure to address your concerns before pulling the plug.
>
> "no, I like not using MP's X11 libs" is not a valid reason.
>
> "wait, wait... the XFree86 port still uses x11prefix" is also not a 
> valid reason.  That port can be updated to be the *only* port using 
> x11prefix (as a local variable).  It will install the server that pure 
> darwin users will need in this alternate prefix, and any other X11 
> application installed by MacPorts will use the new hotness X11 libs.
>
> After this is done, I'm going to go through and start removing all the 
> x11prefix references and workarounds in various ports.  If you are 
> maintainer on a !openmaintainer port that has reference to 
> ${x11prefix}, speak now, or I consider your silence approval.
>
> Once that is done, we can update base to no longer need x11prefix... 
> and our lives should be much simpler...
>
> --Jeremy
>
I agree that this would be a move toward simplification, but the 
interest in universal builds makes me think that a number of people are 
using
MacPorts to build applications to be distributed in binary form to 
various target architectures.  It would make sense to me that in this 
case that
end users should be able to expect any X11 based applications to work 
correctly with the X11 server that MacOS provides out of the box. 

So is this true or would such users need to install xorg-server as 
well?  If so, do all Apple supplied X11 clients work correctly with 
xorg-server?

Dave