From owner-freebsd-gnome@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 30 11:05:31 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 784D916A4CE for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:05:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lakermmtao08.cox.net (lakermmtao08.cox.net [68.230.240.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA6E43D3F for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:05:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mezz7@cox.net) Received: from mezz.mezzweb.com ([68.103.32.11]) by lakermmtao08.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02 201-2131-111-104-20040324) with ESMTP id <20040430180530.CTSH10595.lakermmtao08.cox.net@mezz.mezzweb.com>; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:05:30 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:06:23 -0500 To: Joe Marcus Clarke References: <1083344429.843.11.camel@gyros> From: Jeremy Messenger Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1083344429.843.11.camel@gyros> User-Agent: Opera7.23/Linux M2 build 518 cc: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Any plan to get bsd.gnome.mk works w/ OPTIONS? X-BeenThere: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: GNOME for FreeBSD -- porting and maintaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:05:31 -0000 On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:00:29 -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke 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 >> >> .if ${HAVE_GNOME:Mlibgnome}!="" >> CONFIGURE_ARGS+= --enable-gnome >> .else >> CONFIGURE_ARGS+= --disable-gnome >> .endif >> >> .include >> =================================== >> >> 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 .if ${HAVE_GNOME:Mlibgnome}!="" && defined(WITH_GNOME) CONFIGURE_ARGS+= --enable-gnome .else CONFIGURE_ARGS+= --disable-gnome .endif .include =================================== 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.