Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:36:36 -0700 From: Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com> To: =?UTF-8?Q?Fernando_Herrero_Carr=c3=b3n?= <elferdo@gmail.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Any way to add USES clause depending on two options without including bsd.port.options.mk? Message-ID: <dc234792-8bc3-e1ae-e9f7-1bc91c2d92bc@rawbw.com> In-Reply-To: <CAMwkeZwH7KqU0BG7xoX_Qeu8gZ%2B%2BZ4uFhqLO79xe5v=WK5j0Fg@mail.gmail.com> References: <4e06c0b2-e70e-68e8-732b-97774cff8b2d@rawbw.com> <CAMwkeZwH7KqU0BG7xoX_Qeu8gZ%2B%2BZ4uFhqLO79xe5v=WK5j0Fg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 06/23/2016 14:54, Fernando Herrero Carrón wrote: > Could you please elaborate on the reasons why you want to do that? I don't > see how that particular combination of options would introduce a dependence > that neither of them alone would. In this particular case, as I figured, this isn't actually necessary. But it could be necessary in general, when, say, only in GUI there are some messages to translate, or only GUI needs python. > And then, why not include port.options.mk? Then you could explicitly check > for both options being set. You are right. But without including port.options.mk Makefile looks so much more elegant. Several times I received e-mails asking to remove port.options.mk inclusion to highten the degree of elegance this way. -) Yuri
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?dc234792-8bc3-e1ae-e9f7-1bc91c2d92bc>