Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 17:31:38 -0500 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-ports-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Best way to make the port install another port Message-ID: <44wqkd9rqt.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <CAHcXP%2BfHsB68G5AUX=JhST9coJkhcjgaqUMuTGCBAcvzgaorng@mail.gmail.com> (Big Lebowski's message of "Tue, 12 Nov 2013 22:22:26 %2B0000") References: <CAHcXP%2BeZZ3tYXFmUNJhqU%2B69rVhqw-%2Bae7FMZhfz=BZ8XjdqbQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHcXP%2Bc%2B9g85TJCqrQBoAPuH6tCL=b_WR_jAya%2BcFv-QYUXjyg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ_iqtaD9kKh-NLn29qH=edf6XStUpzXVm_p3JWwi6icP3EQ9g@mail.gmail.com> <441u2lb9po.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <CAHcXP%2BfHsB68G5AUX=JhST9coJkhcjgaqUMuTGCBAcvzgaorng@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Big Lebowski <spankthespam@gmail.com> writes: > Yes, that was exactly the case - I know about these options, and I know how > to use them, but somehow RUN_DEPENDS doesnt feel right here. The original > port is a standalone piece of software, that can perfectly run without the > second one. The second one happens to be developed very closely with first > one, and its a commandline tool for it (but there are other ways to access > and work on the original port). Therefore RUN_DEPENDS sounds wrong. > But if that's what should be used, I'll do so. Look at it this way; the *option* depends on the second port.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44wqkd9rqt.fsf>