Moving X11 install into their own subdirectory

[Jeremy Huddleston]

On Mar 14, 2009, at 20:41, Blair Zajac wrote:

> Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
>> On Mar 14, 2009, at 14:15, Blair Zajac wrote:
>> Further, moving all of X11 into a subdirectory would require  
>> changes to base, massive changes throughout the tree, or both.   
>> It's not feasible.
>
> Well, I think it's rude to tread on some another port without even  
> an apology and requiring work on my part to fix something imposed on  
> me.

I didn't "tread on some another (sic) port".  libICE had been in MP  
for a long time (before I got here, so don't point at me) before this  
conflict was discovered.

> And you say that this is infeasible.

Yes.  libICE has been around for 20 years!  It is linked against by  
numerous ports and third party apps.  It's unfortunate that this ice- 
cpp package chose an existing name for their library, but this is  
really a problem that upstream should've considered before releasing  
their package.

> What about the people who build apps against ice-cpp library and the  
> changes that this require them to their build systems?

Exactly, it's a symmetric problem.  It is infeasible to move the X11  
libs into a subdirectory for the same reason it is a problem for you  
to move ice-cpp... Unfortunately, libICE is much more widely used, so  
it's less intrusive to find a solution involving tweaking ice-cpp than  
it is to tweak libICE.

> You're pushing all this work on me and the people that use ice-cpp.   
> MacPorts X11 isn't a required feature, but a nice to have, since  
> ports can use Apple's X11.

Yes, and ice-cpp is not a required feature either.  It's a symmetric  
argument.

> Additionally, it's hypocritical to say, it's OK for X11 to impact  
> these other ports, even when the X11 ports are new, and not give ice- 
> cpp the same weight.

I did not say "it's OK for X11 to impact these other ports".  For one  
thing, I did not add the libICE package to MP.  The modular lib was  
part of MP for almost a year before this conflict was discovered.   
Because ice-cpp users did not test out X11 in MacPorts, this was not  
discovered until a massive amount of work had gone into integrating  
the new X11 changes into MacPorts and pushing these changes to  
mainstream users.

I had written emails to macports-dev on three separate occasions over  
a period of 6 weeks detailing stage by stage how I was going to change  
dports.  I implemented the changes in stages as to have as little  
impact as possible.

> If somebody said, look, I'm sorry about this, we're going to do this  
> in spite of ice-cpp, how can I help, that would be great.  I realize  
> that ZeroC gave a bad name to their shared library, but that's out  
> of my hands.  So now I need to figure out the best solution to  
> resolve this and take time I don't want to spend on this issue.

Well, like I said, I have no idea how to solve this.  It's a difficult  
problem with no easy solution.  If I could help, I would... but I  
don't see an out.

>> And if you want to play the "who was there first" game... X11R6 has  
>> been around since 1987.
>
> True, but not in this distribution.


libICE was added in with XFree86 in r134 (2002-08-06).  ice-cpp was  
added in r23806 (2007-04-09).  libICE was added independent of XFree86  
as xorg-libice in r34665 (2008-03-01)