From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Feb 11 14:48: 9 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A31337B401 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 14:48:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from tartarus.telenet-ops.be (tartarus.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.46]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14B7D43F75 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 14:48:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from philip@paeps.cx) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by tartarus.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with SMTP id 7B2B1DCE09 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:48:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from fortuna.home.paeps.cx (D5768746.kabel.telenet.be [213.118.135.70]) by tartarus.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDBCCDE365 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:01:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from juno.home.paeps.cx (juno.home.paeps.cx [10.0.0.2]) by fortuna.home.paeps.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E49F879 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:59:19 +0100 (CET) Received: by juno.home.paeps.cx (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5B1E81148; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:59:19 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:59:19 +0100 From: Philip Paeps To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: suggesting optional dependencies framework Message-ID: <20030211215919.GI64755@juno.home.paeps.cx> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <200302112216.54641.tijl@ulyssis.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <200302112216.54641.tijl@ulyssis.org> X-Date-in-Rome: ante diem III Idius Februarias MMDCCLVI ab Urbe Condida X-PGP-Fingerprint: FA74 3C27 91A6 79D5 F6D3 FC53 BF4B D0E6 049D B879 X-Message-Flag: Get a proper mailclient! Mutt: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 2003-02-11 22:16:54 (+0100), Tijl Coosemans wrote: > While browsing through several Makefiles I saw that quite a few ports have > what you can call optional dependencies, often triggered by setting WITH_* > variables. Indeed. I've often been wondering if it would be possible to 'standardise' these in some ways, but haven't had the energy to really try something. > However, every port seems to have its own way to implement this. Some check > for specific files and unconditionally add dependenicies when these files > are found. Others only check the WITH(OUT)_* variables and set configure > options (--enable-*/--disable-*) accordingly. When it comes to displaying > info about these options, several methods exist too. I would find it interesting if we could for example try to have a couple of 'standard' WITH_ and WITHOUT_ variables (like the USE_ variables), such as perhaps WITHOUT_PYTHON, WITHOUT_X11, WITHOUT_PERL, like some ports already use. Additionally, it would be cool to pseudo-standardise individual port conditionals so that they can also be used in make.conf, à la WITH_MUTT_*, WITH_VIM_*, WITH_JDK_*, WITH_FOO_*. > I was wondering if it wouldn't be better to have a common way of > handling such things, defining OPT_BUILD_DEPENDS, OPT_LIB_DEPENDS and > OPT_RUN_DEPENDS or something. It would be easier, I think, just to standardise the things that are already being used in the tree, rather than coming up with new variables. > These would act the same as the existing *_DEPENDS variables apart from the > fact that the dependency won't be installed when the specified file/lib > isn't found. Of course there should be a way to enforce a particular > dependency. And maybe an extra target which lists all options (recursively > like the clean target?). Something should also exist to ensure that there are no 'stale' make.conf variables. This could be a problem given the number of -devel and -snapshot ports. > This would certainly simplify some Makefiles and make it easier for somebody > to determine options, but what do you think about it? I definitely like the idea. I'm all for standardisation and making my life easier come portupgrade-time with having hundreds of flags in make.conf :-) - Philip -- Philip Paeps Please don't CC me, I am philip@paeps.cx subscribed to the list. BOFH Excuse #400: We are Microsoft. What you are experiencing is not a problem; it is an undocumented feature. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message