On Sat, 7 Jun 2003, Jan Schaumann wrote:

> I think we should standardize on the naming of packages wrt to "-nox11"
> vs "-x11".  Currently, we have several packages that have a "-nox11"
> equivalent indicating that this package builds without X11, and others
> with "-x11" equivalents.  It would be less confusing if we would have a
> default and then say for packages that may either work with or without
> the naming is always "<package name>" for _with_ X11 support and
> "<package name>-nox11" without.

I don't think we should have a default.

Some packages are known to provide X11 support in their default install;
so the package that has that disabled would be -nox11.

Then some software is known is not provide X11 support (by default), so
then a package that has been specially configured to add the X11 support
would be named -x11.

Maybe someone can look at the following and look at defaults.  (Probably
can't rely on pkgsrc Makefiles, because they may force "--with-x" or
"--without-x11" even if that's the default.)

editors/ce-x11
editors/emacs-nox11
editors/xemacs-nox11
games/angband-x11
games/maelstrom-x11
games/nethack-x11
graphics/aalib-x11
graphics/aview-x11
print/ghostscript-esp-nox11
print/ghostscript-gnu-nox11
print/ghostscript-gnu-x11
print/ghostscript-nox11
security/ssh2-nox11
wip/qn-x11
www/htmldoc-x11

   Jeremy C. Reed
   http://www.reedmedia.net/

p.s. On a related note: I don't see NO_X11 defined in any docs.

And then I think that groff shouldn't default to need X because of
mk/ghostscript.mk defaults to it.