Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 22:22:26 +0000 From: Big Lebowski <spankthespam@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Best way to make the port install another port Message-ID: <CAHcXP%2BfHsB68G5AUX=JhST9coJkhcjgaqUMuTGCBAcvzgaorng@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <441u2lb9po.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> References: <CAHcXP%2BeZZ3tYXFmUNJhqU%2B69rVhqw-%2Bae7FMZhfz=BZ8XjdqbQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHcXP%2Bc%2B9g85TJCqrQBoAPuH6tCL=b_WR_jAya%2BcFv-QYUXjyg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ_iqtaD9kKh-NLn29qH=edf6XStUpzXVm_p3JWwi6icP3EQ9g@mail.gmail.com> <441u2lb9po.fsf@be-well.ilk.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Lowell Gilbert < freebsd-ports-local@be-well.ilk.org> wrote: > Torfinn Ingolfsen <tingox@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Big Lebowski <spankthespam@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Just bumping it in a hope of someone actually knowing the answer... > > > > Look at one of the existing meta-ports to see how it is done. > > For example: /usr/ports/x11-wm/xfce4 > > My reading of the original message is that the poster knew about > RUN_DEPENDS and OPTIONS, but wasn't comfortable combining the two > for reasons that weren't really clear. Nonetheless, I'm pretty > sure that is what he should do. Yes, that was exactly the case - I know about these options, and I know how to use them, but somehow RUN_DEPENDS doesnt feel right here. The original port is a standalone piece of software, that can perfectly run without the second one. The second one happens to be developed very closely with first one, and its a commandline tool for it (but there are other ways to access and work on the original port). Therefore RUN_DEPENDS sounds wrong. But if that's what should be used, I'll do so. Thanks everyone!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAHcXP%2BfHsB68G5AUX=JhST9coJkhcjgaqUMuTGCBAcvzgaorng>