Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:28:26 -0800 From: "Michael C. Shultz" <ringworm01@gmail.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: devel/pcre and WITH_UTF8 Message-ID: <200502211028.26944.ringworm01@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20050221174930.GA89403@graf.pompo.net> References: <20050221142951.GA48781@pc5-179.lri.fr> <200502210830.37208.ringworm01@gmail.com> <20050221174930.GA89403@graf.pompo.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 21 February 2005 09:49 am, Thierry Thomas wrote: > Le Lun 21 f=C3=A9v 05 =C3=A0 17:30:36 +0100, Michael C. Shultz > <ringworm01@gmail.com> > > =C3=A9crivait=C2=A0: > > > For the port I'm talking about, I can think of a way to test if > > > pcre has UTF8 support, but not on how to force reinstall. > > > > This seems like a good solution on its own. Just do the test you > > described, if it fails print a message that says pcre needs to be > > built with WITH_UTF8=3Dyes or however that port sets its options. No > > need to modify the ports system. > > It's OK to check if the required option has been enabled, but this is > not sufficient: with this solution it would be impossible to package > the port and you have to define IS_INTERACTIVE. A slave port would be > fine. I was addressing this comment: > > By the way, would it be simpler to record the build option in > /var/db/pkg ? In fact, ports using "make config" already record > option in /var/db/ports, generalizing this for non-interactive ports > could be a good starting point. A slave port would be fine, the ports system allready allows for that. =2DMike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200502211028.26944.ringworm01>