Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:39:52 -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: <opr7aecq078ckrg5@smtp.central.cox.net> In-Reply-To: <1083357217.843.29.camel@gyros> References: <opr693mawm8ckrg5@smtp.central.cox.net> <1083344429.843.11.camel@gyros> <opr6968xsj8ckrg5@smtp.central.cox.net> <1083357217.843.29.camel@gyros>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:33:37 -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke
<marcus@marcuscom.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 14:06, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
>> 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.
>
> 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 <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.
>
> 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?opr7aecq078ckrg5>