Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:09:16 +0200 From: Jens Rehsack <rehsack@liwing.de> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/36112: [PATCH] New feature for whole ports tree: GS_PORT variable Message-ID: <3F25126C.4030501@liwing.de> In-Reply-To: <20030728114351.GA53070@rot13.obsecurity.org> References: <200307272105.h6RL5BTo000730@helo.liwing.de> <20030727221222.GA93833@huckfinn.arved.de> <20030728114351.GA53070@rot13.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28.07.2003 13:43, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 12:12:22AM +0200, Tilman Linneweh wrote: > >> Just picking a random PR. >> Instead of adding knobs to every port, a more >> generic solution might be appropriate, e.g. a bsd.port.mk patch. >> >> >> Oh, and I am not the first one with this idea. >> >> PR 36112 by lev tries to introduce a IMHO better solution. > > I thought I had replied recently to that PR (I'll add this mail as a > reply to that PR so we can record the rest of this thread). I also > like this approach, but would prefer a more verbose variable name > (i.e. GHOSTSCRIPT_PORT) so that it's less cryptic. > > I'm not sure about the need for GS_PORTSUFFIX though: if someone wants > to avoid X11 support then they would set GHOSTSCRIPT_PORT to > print/ghostscript-gnu-nox11 (and set WITHOUT_X11) so that none of > their ports that use gs pull in the X dependency. ImageMagick just > happens to be about the only port that provides for this facility at > the moment, by checking WITHOUT_X11 explicitly. So what's your preferred next step: committing patch from ports/36112 and close all PR's I submitted and re-check after commit all ports which are not affected, or shall I re-submit with the style of ports/36112? And to give a statement about WITHOUT_X11 and print/ghostscript-*-nox11: I think it makes much sense to check, because the right dependency is kept, but I don't want to blow the check to much and avoid changing the configure-scripts more than absolutely necessary. The scripts must have knowledge about the handling of bsd.port.mk and the style how print/ghostscript-*-nox11 are working. I don't like those kind of code, so I tried to have a small step and discuss about further changes with experts (eg. like you and Tilman). I've seen some problems with ghostscript-fonts (because I don't understand why it wont work with ghostscript-afpl) and print/cups-pstoraster (were I've got it depend on print/ghostscript-afpl but wasn't able to check whether it's working right or not). I like the way like lang/php4 handles the right port-dependency, but I strongly agree to Joe Markus Clarke who wrote to ports/52674 that such an include should be dependent port related and not be for portmgr in Mk/. I would like to see a bsd.ghostscript.mk, but not in Mk/ but in sth. like print/ghostscript. I don't know whether it makes sense to know about such includes in bsd.*.mk in Mk/ or not, knowing about and including print/ghostscript/bsd.ghostscript.mk could make porters life much easier, but as seen with lang/php4 and security/openssl, it works otherwise, too. Best, Jens
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F25126C.4030501>