From owner-freebsd-ports Wed Jul 29 08:55:11 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA18807 for freebsd-ports-outgoing; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 08:55:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from vader.cs.berkeley.edu (vader.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.38.234]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA18771; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 08:55:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu) Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (sji-ca7-55.ix.netcom.com [209.109.235.55]) by vader.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA22720; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 08:54:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.8/8.6.9) id IAA02158; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 08:54:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 08:54:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807291554.IAA02158@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> To: ac199@hwcn.org CC: ports@FreeBSD.ORG, jkh@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: (message from Tim Vanderhoek on Wed, 29 Jul 1998 00:53:45 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: comments on X dependency patch? From: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi Asami) Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * I say go for it. Not only will this help prevent needless * USE_X11s, but it will also make Sue Blake happy. :) Well, I hope I made myself clear, I intend to replace USE_X11 with USE_X_PREFIX and add a new USE_X11 that does exactly what it says (depend on X). This is a wholescale change, and we'll have hundreds of new USE_X11 ports. * What sort of changes are required in sysinstall and/or pkg_add? * * Of course, if any changes are needed to either, the standard * "upgrade your ports subsystem" package will need to take those * changes into account, too. Make sure /var/db/pkg/XFree86-3.3.2 is populated when XFree86 libraries are installed from the X distribution as part of sysinstall, not a port. Otherwise package users will see a warning that the package "XFree86-3.3.2.tgz" is not found. (It doesn't matter for ports users because it's a LIB_DEPEND, so it won't be part of the "upgrade your ports" subsystem.) * > +.elif defined(NO_CONFIGURE) * > +IGNORE= "defines NO_CONFIGURE, which is obsoleted" * > +.elif defined(NO_PATCH) * > +IGNORE= "defines NO_PATCH, which is obsoleted" * * Are these two really really needed? I can't think of a way that It has nothing to do with the rest of the patch. It's just something that has been annoying me for awhile. :) * a port defining NO_CONFIGURE (or NO_PATCH) will be broken by this * patch, and so far as removing all the NO_CONFIGUREs (and * NO_PATCH) from the existing ports, there are better ways (surely * I don't need to suggest man's best friend, "grep" ;-). Standard * portlint(1) can prevent any new NO_CONFIGUREs (and NO_PATCHs). * * Everyone does use portlint(1) before they import a new port, * right? () It's just that new ones keep coming in. There isn't any NO_CONFIGURE or NO_PATCH in the ports tree so this patch won't break any existing port. It will prevent new ones from being submitted. Satoshi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message