Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:41:20 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Koop Mast <kwm@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/www/webkit-gtk2 Makefile ports/www/webkit-gtk2/files patch-add-gzip patch-webkitnetworkresponse Message-ID: <20091223224120.GA55961@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1261607271.1881.15.camel@headache.rainbow-runner.nl> References: <200912232017.nBNKHVOJ059440@repoman.freebsd.org> <20091223204905.GA33365@FreeBSD.org> <1261607271.1881.15.camel@headache.rainbow-runner.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 11:27:51PM +0100, Koop Mast wrote: > On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 20:49 +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > Weird, PR does not say what is exactly broken with flex(1) from the > > base. Could you enlighten us why the port cannot be patched so > > third-party alternative from ports for existing tool in the base is > > required? Thanks. > > First the webkit port already depended on flex. Since the configure > script wants version at least 2.5.33, we need to depend on the port. The OK, so that gets us to the next question: what particular features of v2.5.33 break this port against flex v2.5.4 (version we have in base)? > problem is detection of the flex binary. Without the patch mentioned in > the pr, the port system can pick up the base flex, if the port flex > isn't installed. So tell the port to look in localbase for the port > flex. I can read and understand that patch. What I was asking about if trivial patch to configure script/source code could remedy the problem instead of pulling extra dependency, just because it's newer than version we have in the base. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091223224120.GA55961>