Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 17:45:56 -0800 From: Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org> To: obrien@freebsd.org Cc: doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: OpenJade support isn't complete Message-ID: <20010321014556.55D5A3E09@bazooka.unixfreak.org> In-Reply-To: <20010320085504.A28070@dragon.nuxi.com>; from obrien@freebsd.org on "Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:55:04 -0800"
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
"David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> writes:
> Here is the Makefile after applying your patch:
>
> .if ${OSVERSION} < 220000
> RUN_DEPENDS= nsgmls:${PORTSDIR}/textproc/sp
> .else
> RUN_DEPENDS= nsgmls:${PORTSDIR}/textproc/jade
> .endif
>
> .if ${MACHINE_ARCH} == "alpha"
> WITH_OPENJADE= yes
> .endif
>
> .if defined(WITH_OPENJADE)
> RUN_DEPENDS= onsgmls:${PORTSDIR}/textproc/openjade
> .endif
>
> Note that all FreeBSD/Alpha machines have OSVERSION > 220000. Thus
> nsgmls:${PORTSDIR}/textproc/jade before we even check to see if we are an
> Alpha. I believe the patch I posted to be correct over this one.
I think our patches do the same thing. The reason your release build
failed was because WITH_OPENJADE was set for the Alpha case after it
was checked for, so it ended up using and installing jade; both of our
patches fix that by moving the check up. The WITH_OPENJADE logic
isn't broken. Looking at the last three lines above, RUN_DEPENDS is
set to *just* openjade if WITH_OPENJADE is defined (did you misread
that as "RUN_DEPENDS+=" (with the plus)?).
That said, I think your patch results in a more easily-understood
Makefile, and thus should be used in favor of mine.
Regards
Dima Dorfman
dima@unixfreak.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010321014556.55D5A3E09>