Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 06:28:14 -0500 From: Jeremy Messenger <mezz.freebsd@gmail.com> To: nanoman@nanoman.ca Cc: gnome@freebsd.org Subject: Re: WANT_GNOME Causes Automatic Dependencies Message-ID: <CADLFttfbkuPNRgUwGxkgj8rpHXgy67grDqod0vePi5sEt0cJPw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120831032033.GE31703@nanocomputer.nanoman.ca> References: <20120830182257.GC31703@nanocomputer.nanoman.ca> <CADLFttdJn4LcY1xzxt6VmT4364aZoBcqakuttf4hd37RW3i4tg@mail.gmail.com> <20120830214321.GD31703@nanocomputer.nanoman.ca> <CADLFttdT8-qZeu32RmKs0gMWH_ukbEyyk2zojnyC7G4fRDc6=w@mail.gmail.com> <20120831032033.GE31703@nanocomputer.nanoman.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:20 PM, A.J. Kehoe IV (Nanoman) <nanoman@nanoman.ca> wrote: <snip> > Does anyone maintain a dependencies map for GNOME? Not that I know of. Speaking of dependencies... Since the GNOME 2 is dead already. I think it's good time for us to remove the GNOME 2 dependencies option in some of ports. For example, editors/vim has GNOME2 option so remove that part. > I'm thinking of > something like this, but parsable, legible, and current: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~adamw/gnome_kde_deps/gnome2-lite.png > > It would also need to indicate how optional components fit together. > > [...] > > >>> I'm not fond of my misc/gnome-components method either, so any >>> alternative >>> ideas are very welcome. All I've done thus far is created a Makefile >>> with >>> an OPTIONS list for the 97 components from bsd.gnome.mk. >>> >>> What do you suggest for a real fix/clean? Based on your response, the >>> ideal >>> fix has at least two attributes: >>> >>> 1. No automatic dependencies. >>> >>> 2. An option to disable specific components. >> >> >> I meant by remove the HAVE_GNOME from port Makefile then switch to either: >> >> 1) automatic dependency by using exists() or >> 2) OPTIONS if the port's configure provides flag to disable. >> >> It is unnecessary to make it complicates with gnome-components when >> the standard solution available in our ports tree. As for the #1, yes, >> it has to be there because a few configure files do that without >> option to disable (blame it on upstream). > > > I'm not opposed to writing patches that will make the WANT_GNOME ports > declare their dependencies predictably. There are approximately 183 ports > using WANT_GNOME, so writing these patches is going to take me several days, > followed by weeks of waiting for maintainer updates. I might be able to get > through this faster by asking the maintainers to assist me, but I expect to > have to do most on my own. > > I'm absolutely willing to abort my misc/gnome-components plan in favour of a > better idea. If writing patches for roughly 183 ports is considered a > better idea, then this is what I will do instead. Who said that you have to do it alone? :-) If you want to do it as soon as possible. You can gather a team to hunt down those ports then give a big patch to portmgr to do the test in pointyhat-exp. When everything is perfect then commit it into ports tree with portmgr's approval without need to ask each maintainers. You have my support and approval to mess around with gnome@ ports. Show portmgr about this email threads. If you can wait then I (and maybe kwm) will be able to help you with it. We have enough stuff on our plates right now by trying to push GNOME 3 into ports tree after the 9.1 released. FreeBSD GNOME Team only have two active people, kwm and me, that are maintaining about over 460 ports (plus GNOME 3 and MATE ports that are yet to commit). We need new blood to join gnome@. > It is indeed a problem when a port doesn't respect configure arguments to > enable or disable optional features, but exists() causes automatic > dependencies. Fortunately, there are two solutions: > > A. Convince the upstream source that they need to fix this at their end. > Sending them a patch is the best way. It's very low chance for GNOME 2 stuff as a lot of GNOME 2 apps are no longer maintain by upstream. > B. Write a patch that fixes this within the FreeBSD Ports Collection. Such > a patch may require upkeep by the port maintainer. <snip> I don't have any of problem if anyone want to patch it. As for me, I just don't use exists() and add dependency by default without provide option. I know I am lazy. ;-) Cheers, Mezz -- mezz.freebsd@gmail.com - mezz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD GNOME Team http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLFttfbkuPNRgUwGxkgj8rpHXgy67grDqod0vePi5sEt0cJPw>