From owner-freebsd-gnome@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 3 05:26:44 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B79F16A4CE for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 05:26:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.pressenter.com (hermes.pressenter.com [69.58.128.19]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FFD843F85 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 05:26:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nospam@hiltonbsd.com) Received: from [69.58.129.162] (helo=daggar.sbgnet.local) by hermes.pressenter.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AGejA-0007SH-00; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 07:26:41 -0600 Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 07:26:07 -0600 From: Stephen Hilton To: James Pole Message-Id: <20031103072607.4a75bb86.nospam@hiltonbsd.com> In-Reply-To: <1067843548.3865.17.camel@localhost> References: <200311021927.hA2JRIt2074978@freefall.freebsd.org> <1067833233.258.10.camel@localhost> <20031103045730.GV96543@toxic.magnesium.net> <1067843548.3865.17.camel@localhost> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.9) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable cc: gnome@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/58840: [PATCH] exclude possibly unrequireddependenciesfrom x11/gnome2 X-BeenThere: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: GNOME for FreeBSD -- porting and maintaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 13:26:44 -0000 On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 20:12:28 +1300 James Pole wrote: > On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 17:57, Adam Weinberger wrote:=09 > > The reason that these programs are part of x11/gnome2 and not > > x11/gnome2-fifth-toe is that, at any point, the GNOME project could > > start releasing software that assumes that any and all parts of the > > GNOME desktop/development system are installed. >=20 > We have a ports system that automatically works out the dependicies for > all the applications in the port collection. If a port requires all the > features it needs to specify all the features it needs otherwise its a > broken port. >=20 > While I respect your opinion, I don't agree with it. Not everything > needs to be installed. Why things like gnomemeeting should be installed > puzzles me. There should be an *easy* way for users to opt out of > unneccessary things. >=20 > Plenty of other ports take advantage of WITH_* and/or WITHOUT_* options > to let users finetune their ports without forcing them to write their > own Makefiles. Why not x11/gnome2? >=20 > Just because the GNOME project says this or that should be the default, > doesn't mean that we should not allow users to specify what they don't > want from the default options. >=20 I admin a Gnome2 system that has no sound card and always has an error=20 on Gnome2 desktop startup regarding no sound device. In an previous exchange I read this: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 09:36, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: > Is there any way to install Gnome (or at least the parts of it that > are necessary to run Gnome applications, without necessarily using it > as a desktop) without the horrible abomination that is esound? Case > in point: print/ggv2; I simply cannot understand why it requires > esound. Esound is a pretty low-level dependency in GNOME, thus all apps that depend on libgnome, depend on esound. This does not mean you have to _use_ esound, though. You don't have to run the esound daemon. In fact, you could add WITHOUT_GNOME=3Desound to /etc/make.conf, which will prevent esound-optional apps from depending on it. Joe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- These are the 2 lines in the Gnome2 Makefile that reference audio: gnome-cd:${PORTSDIR}/audio/gnomemedia2 \ ${X11BASE}/share/gnome/sounds/question.wav:${PORTSDIR}/audio/gnomeaudio2 \ What is the correct way to handle this problem ? (besides adding a sound card ;-) Regards, Stephen Hilton nospam@hiltonbsd