Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 17:25:47 -0500 From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu> To: "bf1783@gmail.com" <bf1783@gmail.com> Cc: "danfe@freebsd.org" <danfe@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-x11@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-x11@freebsd.org>, "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com> Subject: Re: x11/nvidia-driver incompatible with portmaster? Message-ID: <4E138F6B.40109@missouri.edu> In-Reply-To: <CAGFTUwN41mVsJ0VY2bZgN8Y-_74YPaNTMy%2Bxe0jzJ8Ocp1sGdg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAGFTUwMPV9Tge6%2BGZO879KD7dh6Sr6%2BfPGK97SGvRndBitMTjg@mail.gmail.com> <4E0FCDD1.7050809@missouri.edu> <4E0FD8DC.20700@missouri.edu> <CAGFTUwM-c4WvkX01iuDh4kWcjX8kLKv9Gm1297orPMgNyV_1Cg@mail.gmail.com> <20110703114104.GK48734@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <CAGFTUwM2VMBsWmxQ70PkNcDfPb_JOBUw7N1wZOVsXfPPSQic1g@mail.gmail.com> <20110703140400.GO48734@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <CAGFTUwPHREj=oucqCihCpYB%2BzdZR3Vtkztaod9EbV2SaP679HA@mail.gmail.com> <20110705095600.GE48734@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <CAGFTUwN41mVsJ0VY2bZgN8Y-_74YPaNTMy%2Bxe0jzJ8Ocp1sGdg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07/05/2011 07:32 AM, b. f. wrote: > Yes, as I wrote, I wasn't altogether happy with that, but it was > expedient. If there is a symlink there, it will be overwritten, and > then replaced by a link to either the xorg library or the > nvidia-driver library, depending upon whether the nvidia-driver is > present. Of course, that's not so different from any other port > installation, which will overwrite existing files and links. But I > guess you're using some alternative symlinks that you want to > preserve? I could take the low road, and move the link out of the way > temporarily, restoring it after renaming the xorg library, or I could > take the high road and add further patches to override the current > libtool install. Which road is it to be? I would take the low road. The advantage is that if xorg-server gets updated, then you don't need to rewrite the patch. Indeed, if I had written the patch, I would have used this "rude" approach for every affected port. I also would have in pkg-list: @exec cd the-dir; rm -f libglx.so; if [ -f libglx-nvidia.so ]; then ln -s libglx-nvidia.so libglx.so; elif [ -f libglx-xorg.so ]; then ln -s libglx-xorg.so libglx.so; fi and exactly the same script for @unexec, and in post-install in each Makefile, and for libGL.so and libglx.la, in every one of the affected ports. This way there would be uniformity, and only one logic to understand. It would definitely be "ruder" than your approach, and more clutsy. But I believe that sometimes clumsiness and redundancy wins if the logic is more uniform and easier to follow. This is, of course, all my opinion, and respects my personal style of doing things, and is probably out of phase with most other FreeBSd committers. And if your approach works, then I say it is more important to do it than to argue about style. Stephen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E138F6B.40109>