From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 26 14:26:17 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D98A106568C for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 14:26:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from laszlof@freebsd.org) Received: from wookie.tvog.net (wookie.tvog.net [66.232.114.123]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D27D8FC16 for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 14:26:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from laszlof@freebsd.org) Received: from c-24-98-139-235.hsd1.ga.comcast.net ([24.98.139.235] helo=[192.168.0.3]) by wookie.tvog.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1M8xbP-0001Tm-WD; Tue, 26 May 2009 10:26:04 -0400 Message-ID: <4A1BFBF3.9030103@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 10:25:55 -0400 From: "Frank J. Laszlo" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Florent Thoumie References: <20090526113714.GC1043@straylight.m.ringlet.net> <20090526120948.GA14134@owl.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - wookie.tvog.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - freebsd.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - freebsd.org Cc: Randy Bush , Peter Pentchev , ports Subject: Re: make.conf no x option X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 14:26:17 -0000 Florent Thoumie wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Erik Trulsson wrote: > >> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 08:44:43PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: >> >>>>> as so many folk build server-only, there must e a make.conf or whatever >>>>> option to tell ports that you just do not want an x server or any of >>>>> it's 500kg friends. but i can not seem to find it. >>>>> >>>> I think you're looking for WITHOUT_X11=yes :) >>>> >>> i have that. i still get a lot of x with some ports. i will try to >>> keep a watch for which ones. >>> >> Well, there are many ports which depend unconditionally upon X. >> If you install one of them (or some other port which depends on one of them) >> you will get X, no questions asked. >> >> WITHOUT_X11 is useful for those ports which have an optional dependency upon >> X, but that is all it does. >> >> >> There does not exist any flag which tells the ports-system to refuse to >> build any ports which depend on X, which seems to be what you want. >> > > Something like the following would work as a safety net. > > --- /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.xorg.mk.orig 2009-05-26 13:42:52.000000000 +0100 > +++ /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.xorg.mk 2009-05-26 13:42:58.000000000 +0100 > @@ -28,6 +28,11 @@ > # xserver - there's only one atm, I guess everything can fit into the > port itself > > .if defined(XORG_CAT) > + > +. if defined(WITHOUT_X11) > +IGNORE= me not want x11 > +. endif > + > # Default variables, common to all new modular xorg ports. > .if !defined(USE_TGZ) > USE_BZIP2= yes > > You could also just rm the x11-* directories from the ports tree, and then set exceptions for csup/cvsup/whatever to not update them. It'll generate an error if you try to install any X11 dependent ports, but it wont install them ;) Obviously the above fix is better, but it would need to be tested thoroughly before being committed. Regards, Frank Laszlo