From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Jul 30 16:15:35 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA16648 for freebsd-ports-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 16:15:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from localhost.my.domain (ppp6490.on.bellglobal.com [206.172.208.82]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA16609; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 16:15:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ac199@hwcn.org) Received: (from tim@localhost) by localhost.my.domain (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA27969; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 22:14:52 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from tim) Message-ID: <19980729221452.A27633@zappo> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 22:14:52 -0400 From: Tim Vanderhoek To: Satoshi Asami Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG, jkh@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: comments on X dependency patch? References: <199807291554.IAA02158@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1i In-Reply-To: <199807291554.IAA02158@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>; from Satoshi Asami on Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 08:54:26AM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 08:54:26AM -0700, Satoshi Asami wrote: > * I say go for it. Not only will this help prevent needless > * USE_X11s, but it will also make Sue Blake happy. :) > > Well, I hope I made myself clear, I intend to replace USE_X11 with I think you made yourself clear. At least, what you said jived with what the patch said. :-) I meant that this should hopefully save us from tcl/tk ports, etc. sticking in USE_X11 just because they "well, use X11" and then ending up in X_PREFIX needlessly. > Make sure /var/db/pkg/XFree86-3.3.2 is populated when XFree86 > libraries are installed from the X distribution as part of sysinstall, > not a port. Otherwise package users will see a warning that the ^^^^^^^ I think there is a PR submitted that will turn this into an error, which is what it looks like it was intended to be (from the code), and which it is (supposedly) documented to be. > * > +.elif defined(NO_CONFIGURE) > * > +IGNORE= "defines NO_CONFIGURE, which is obsoleted" > * > +.elif defined(NO_PATCH) > * > +IGNORE= "defines NO_PATCH, which is obsoleted" > > It's just that new ones keep coming in. There isn't any NO_CONFIGURE > or NO_PATCH in the ports tree so this patch won't break any existing > port. It will prevent new ones from being submitted. Let's strike a deal. ;-) I'll make no further complaints about this, on the condition that you in exchange remove the following 5 lines: # The following 4 lines should go away as soon as the ports are all updated .if defined(EXEC_DEPENDS) BUILD_DEPENDS+= ${EXEC_DEPENDS} RUN_DEPENDS+= ${EXEC_DEPENDS} .endif They start on line #359 in my copy of bsd.port.mk, but my copy is a little hacked-up with some ideas I was playing with, so the line# might be different in the current bsd.port.mk. Sounds like a pretty good exchange, IMHO. If I were you, I'd go for it in a second! ;-) -- This .sig is not innovative, witty, or profund. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message