Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 05:49:27 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Jens Rehsack <rehsack@liwing.de> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: ports/36112: [PATCH] New feature for whole ports tree: GS_PORT variable Message-ID: <20030728124927.GA27827@rot13.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <3F25192B.1090502@liwing.de> References: <200307272105.h6RL5BTo000730@helo.liwing.de> <20030727221222.GA93833@huckfinn.arved.de> <20030728114351.GA53070@rot13.obsecurity.org> <3F25126C.4030501@liwing.de> <20030728121703.GA63021@rot13.obsecurity.org> <3F25192B.1090502@liwing.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 02:38:03PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote:
> I mean that I see the requirement of checking for -nox11, but I
> don't want to introduce it overall, because I see that the
> configure scripts of mail/courier and graphics/ImageMagic check
> for it separately. So I wanted to hear what the port experts say
> to that problem.
That's not really a problem; ports that have their own optional X11
dependencies can (and should) have their WITHOUT_X11 checks to disable
this, but there's no need for it to also add -nox11 to the ghostscript
port. The use would just set WITHOUT_X11=foo to turn off x11 support
in ImageMagick, and GHOSTSCRIPT_PORT=print/ghostscript-gnu-x11 to make
it depend on a non-X11 ghostscript variant.
> >What would such a bsd.ghostscript.mk contain?
>
> Not much, just a check for the right ghostscript-port (gnu/afpl,
> (-nox11){0,1}). And maybe some common things from
> ghostscript-*/Makefile (must be checked before).
Unless there's something substantial to be done, there's not a big
reason to break it out of bsd.port.mk into its own makefile.
Kris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030728124927.GA27827>