From owner-freebsd-ports  Sun Oct 12 04:57:18 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA16272
          for ports-outgoing; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 04:57:18 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports)
Received: from word.smith.net.au (word.smith.net.au [202.0.75.3])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA16264
          for <ports@freebsd.org>; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 04:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from mike@word.smith.net.au)
Received: from word.smith.net.au (localhost.smith.net.au [127.0.0.1])
	by word.smith.net.au (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA01129;
	Sun, 12 Oct 1997 21:24:08 +0930 (CST)
Message-Id: <199710121154.VAA01129@word.smith.net.au>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97
To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
cc: mike@smith.net.au, ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Ghostscript 5 port is broken 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 12 Oct 1997 04:24:30 MST."
             <199710121124.EAA04134@bubble.didi.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 21:24:07 +0930
From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>  *  - It requires the jpeg6 and png ports for building, but fails to
>  *    detect that they are already installed.  Instead, it depends on 
>  *    the file /nonexistent, ie. it *always* extracts, builds and installs
>  *    both these ports.  This will fail if they have already been
>  *    installed.
...
> You need a new bsd.port.mk for both these things.

How does a new bsd.port.mk handle depending on /nonexistent in the 
ghostscript5 Makefile as opposed to depending on the relevant shared 
libraries?

> Really.  I'm building all ports (except interactive or restricted
> ones) about once per week now.  Please do not expect something this
> basic to be broken so long, and do not send mail to -ports without
> upgrading at least your bsd.port.mk to the latest version.

It looks like something stale happened (this is supposed to be my 
2.2.5-BETA test system, but it's misbehaving such that I think 
something got splatted, but believe me I wouldn't have bothered to 
report this if I thought that it wasn't actually a fundamental problem 
with the port.

mike