Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:06:23 -0500 From: Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net> To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> Cc: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Any plan to get bsd.gnome.mk works w/ OPTIONS? Message-ID: <opr6968xsj8ckrg5@smtp.central.cox.net> In-Reply-To: <1083344429.843.11.camel@gyros> References: <opr693mawm8ckrg5@smtp.central.cox.net> <1083344429.843.11.camel@gyros>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:00:29 -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke
<marcus@marcuscom.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 12:48, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am a maintainer of x11-wm/fluxbox-devel and I just changed from
>> pre-everything to OPTIONS. So, I noticed that it needs the OPTIONS to be
>> add in the bsd.gnome.mk. Do anyone have any plan? I tried to do it by
>> myself (for now) like this for example:
>>
>> ===================================
>> WANT_GNOME= yes
>>
>> OPTIONS= GNOME "Enable GNOME support" on
>>
>> .include <bsd.port.pre.mk>
>>
>> .if ${HAVE_GNOME:Mlibgnome}!=""
>> CONFIGURE_ARGS+= --enable-gnome
>> .else
>> CONFIGURE_ARGS+= --disable-gnome
>> .endif
>>
>> .include <bsd.port.post.mk>
>> ===================================
>>
>> It will not listen to the OPTIONS if the user turn it off, but will
>> listen
>> to the 'make -DWITHOUT_GNOME'.
>
> That's because OPTIONS are processed after bsd.gnome.mk is included in
> bsd.port.post.mk.
I did tried put OPTIONS inside and it still doesn't work.
>> I am wondering what are the plan for this like remove GNOME from OPTIONS
>> and it will be done by automatic by bsd.gnome.mk or should I keep GNOME
>> in
>> OPTIONS? Just want to ask so I can have it ready early. :-)
>
> There is no plan to add OPTIONS directly into bsd.gnome.mk.
Well I think we will need it later, because it will not can tell what's
default of off and on. I think, it needs to have something like if
libgnome exists then it is on in the OPTIONS.
> However, OPTIONS may get an overhaul at some point so that the above will
> work. For now, I would leave things to bsd.gnome.mk, or add another check
> in your Makefile:
>
> .if ${HAVE_GNOME:Mlibgnome}!="" && !defined(WITHOUT_GNOME)
It still doesn't make any sense to me. Let's say if I want it to be off by
default for example as opposite, since I have libgnome and I can test it
that way. It should be same idea as user that who doesn't has any libgnome
install and want to enable WITH_GNOME.
===================================
WANT_GNOME= yes
OPTIONS= GNOME "Enable GNOME support" off
.include <bsd.port.pre.mk>
.if ${HAVE_GNOME:Mlibgnome}!="" && defined(WITH_GNOME)
CONFIGURE_ARGS+= --enable-gnome
.else
CONFIGURE_ARGS+= --disable-gnome
.endif
.include <bsd.port.post.mk>
===================================
It works fine with OPTIONS, but what if I have the WITH_BATCH define when
I have libgnome exists? It will not work very well with the WITH_BATCH
define. Only a solution to me so far is to not use HAVE_GNOME.
Cheers,
Mezz
> Joe
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mezz
--
mezz7@cox.net - mezz@FreeBSD.org
bsdforums.org 's moderator, mezz.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?opr6968xsj8ckrg5>