Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 22:02:52 -0600 (MDT) From: Mike Brown <mike@skew.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: conditional dependency question Message-ID: <200510270402.j9R42qLF093991@chilled.skew.org> In-Reply-To: <200409062059.i86Kxuwn037056@chilled.skew.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Way back on Sep 6, 2004, I wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like a port I am working on to ensure that if a certain > other port/package is installed, that it be a particular version > or higher. But I do not want to require the other package as a > dependency; I just want to make sure that *if* it is installed, > it is the right version. > > I couldn't discern a Makefile directive that would do this. If > someone could point me in the right direction / show me an example > of a port that does this kind of checking, please reply on- or > off-list. [1] AFAIK, no one ever offered any help with this. I see now that the Porters Handbook says "If your package cannot coexist with other packages (because of file conflicts, runtime incompatibility, etc.), list the other package names in the CONFLICTS variable." [2] A runtime incompatibility is exactly what I have. The thing I don't like about using CONFLICTS, though, is bsd.port.mk reports the conflict with the generic message "They install files into the same place", which isn't always accurate. Since it seems CONFLICTS is the right thing to use, is it possible to change the message in bsd.ports.mk so that it says "They install files into the same place, or have other interoperability issues." or some such? Thanks, Mike -- [1] http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2004-September/015918.html [2] http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/conflicts.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200510270402.j9R42qLF093991>