From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 23 05:31:44 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE11E1065676 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 05:31:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@opsec.eu) Received: from home.opsec.eu (home.opsec.eu [IPv6:2001:14f8:200::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BCDF8FC13 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 05:31:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pi by home.opsec.eu with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2GfX-0001AE-4W for ports@freebsd.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 06:31:43 +0100 Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 06:31:43 +0100 From: Kurt Jaeger Message-ID: <20110323053143.GC34314@home.opsec.eu> References: <201103221535.07015.jhb@freebsd.org> <4D890476.1050808@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D890476.1050808@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: KDE and GNOME release packages do not play well together X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 05:31:44 -0000 Hi! > John Baldwin ha scritto: > > This would appear to no longer be a supported use case in for 8.2 packages > > (and if you believe posts on the forums, 8.1 was equally broken). Namely, > > some package the GNOME depends on wants to use unixODBC, and some other > > package that KDE depends on wants to use libiodbc. The simplest suggestion in > > the forums appears to be to change the gnome package (devel/ptlib26) to use > > libiodbc instead. > > Even if it could be simpler (is it?), I think unixODBC is a more common > choice these days, so changing the KDE ports could be better. Both ports CONFLICT right now, only because both install /usr/local/include/sql.h Otherwise, they could be installed in parallel and there would be no problem. The contents of include/sql.h is very similar, because it contains the interface definitions of ODBC (mostly 'defines'). > I don't have personal experience, but the two ports should be completely > interchangeable, so we could add support for USE_ODBC in > bsd.databases.mk and allow the user to choose the odbc implementation > (with one [unixODBC?] as default to create consistent packages). As far as I heard from some ppl, they are not 100% interchangeable. Maybe some clever construct of ifdef in a generic sql.h and two install-locations for the two sql.h files would help to resolv the CONFLICT ? -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 9 years to go !