From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Fri Jun 24 20:39:59 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FA58B80FEF for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 20:39:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from elferdo@gmail.com) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E154E1F29 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 20:39:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from elferdo@gmail.com) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id DD241B80FEE; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 20:39:58 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC29B80FED for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 20:39:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from elferdo@gmail.com) Received: from mail-io0-x22c.google.com (mail-io0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5DA11F28 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 20:39:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from elferdo@gmail.com) Received: by mail-io0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id g13so101890597ioj.1 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 13:39:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=TAt0jSCeCJabURcYSPLH60vqsa9h35gFCiFEotHRUPc=; b=dfW8nIprF5kAkvm9+pPn4DBegABJKDA36j1t5C7rcaXp4TPgVwIFG5xGXPPQV86fGg qSgge/TCJhOh9cRe4tk9WO7HHNXdOZgrY9axiskc4I39N7A2leGmxv0EfLRshFDYrYpX 7iq238cqoOMmMRmynrtod5vnVYaobG6IEhCAiIQOyBa9roFbKw9QTm3bEMR6a/c+G2WX 6ETOyF2jBWiD7mlffD6cUvi4WVcXrktKN9LY8zR6NgNzzF3MgU28lWlz+uW2Ht6ACiV6 DJiltLf2vfEPag5hfXA+2q+DFG6LfeQyQFjMsEAgcQEcBh7x+gMX/hGz9f1Y6lRHmWg1 CH/g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=TAt0jSCeCJabURcYSPLH60vqsa9h35gFCiFEotHRUPc=; b=UPLNyKNx0GlMXgWeGGjxPrHEvDAWcyzSdYG8DMgXoXjYf3zx5vj5QvtNl7z4dYKkih sZgjHu6O3/WOMNgi5dHJ/kFnzwO2lt3OTw9YPudoRS3bLZ0Ac7albIDS7heFAy4OMATb DHKZAVtwPbk6kCCqzmYRT5dx7tIjd5GOyAU+90UEX3NrQRqBhL/pz/ohfynrTFK5Wul5 csIK10Rm31kU0u9VEx5G7NdYB4yURJ0fkbjpdFwrg8ccXR60IdJ4ltZsqnd3CcJYjVg9 g8wmFmsjdc/MR9m11pfxpPMhvvKqd8TQbtWtmvxsGuHolZBGZCPbKd/YhvZwx1mtUNSF L61w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJwg+BoVm6TGb6uwQ1GgK2X+yOIwC1bv4svBWZXjn+FtweMp/dVXkrLRPwgmGlW0Q0cUBHESjbrGL1reg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.142.82 with SMTP id q79mr7857397iod.18.1466800797926; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 13:39:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.95.17 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 13:39:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.95.17 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 13:39:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4e06c0b2-e70e-68e8-732b-97774cff8b2d@rawbw.com> Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 22:39:57 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Any way to add USES clause depending on two options without including bsd.port.options.mk? From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fernando_Herrero_Carr=C3=B3n?= To: Yuri Cc: ports@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.22 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 20:39:59 -0000 El 24 jun. 2016 9:36 p. m., "Yuri" escribi=C3=B3: > > On 06/23/2016 14:54, Fernando Herrero Carr=C3=B3n 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. -) Fair enough! I am not one to argue against elegance ;-) but as Mathieu said: magic only goes so far! Good luck! > > > Yuri > Fernando