From owner-freebsd-gnome@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 30 13:39:00 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 8E88816A4D0 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:39:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lakermmtao08.cox.net (lakermmtao08.cox.net [68.230.240.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E937843D4C for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:38:59 -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 <20040430203859.FJZV10595.lakermmtao08.cox.net@mezz.mezzweb.com>; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:38:59 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:39:52 -0500 To: Joe Marcus Clarke References: <1083344429.843.11.camel@gyros> <1083357217.843.29.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: <1083357217.843.29.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 20:39:00 -0000 On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:33:37 -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 14:06, Jeremy Messenger wrote: >> 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. > > No, what I mean is that bsd.gnome.mk is included in bsd.port.mk BEFORE > the OPTIONS are looked at. Therefore, it won't matter what you do in > your port's Makefile, OPTIONS will not affect HAVE_GNOME. > >> >> >> 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. > > That would require some work to bsd.port.mk and bsd.gnome.mk. You're > welcome to take a crack at it. > >> >> > 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. > > Yes, that will not work in this example. Though you could do something > like: > > .if ${HAVE_GNOME:Mlibgnome}!="" || defined(WITH_GNOME) > > That's one of the problems with OPTIONS now. The negative and positive > scenarios are not well-defined. What I've decided to do myself is not > use OPTIONS for things that are auto-detected. The '||' still will not work too with the OPTIONS. :-) It's why I hate OPTIONS, so I guess I will bring the pre-everything back in. Thanks! Cheers, Mezz > Joe > >> >> Cheers, >> Mezz >> >> > Joe >> > >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Mezz -- mezz7@cox.net - mezz@FreeBSD.org bsdforums.org 's moderator, mezz.