From owner-freebsd-commit Mon Jul 17 07:03:25 1995 Return-Path: commit-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id HAA01492 for commit-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 07:03:25 -0700 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id HAA01479 for cvs-ports-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 07:03:21 -0700 Received: from deep-thought.demos.su (root@deep-thought.demos.su [192.91.186.133]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id HAA01471 ; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 07:03:01 -0700 Received: by deep-thought.demos.su id SAA00607; (8.6.11/D) Mon, 17 Jul 1995 18:02:29 +0400 To: Satoshi Asami Cc: CVS-commiters@freefall.cdrom.com, cvs-ports@freefall.cdrom.com References: <199507170934.CAA09504@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <199507170934.CAA09504@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>; from Satoshi Asami at Mon, 17 Jul 1995 02:34:46 -0700 Message-ID: Organization: DEMOS Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 18:02:28 +0400 (MSD) X-Mailer: Mail/@ [v2.40 FreeBSD] From: =?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?= aka "Andrey A. Chernov, Black Mage" X-Class: Fast Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/mail/pgpsendmail Makefile Lines: 48 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1692 Sender: commit-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk In message <199507170934.CAA09504@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> Satoshi Asami writes: > * >Ah, I see. However, the problem is that the package will contain the > * >name of the package depended, so there isn't really a way to build a > * >pgpsendmail package that can use either of the pgp versions.... > * > * It CAN be build without PGP, but it is useless without it :-) >No, that's not what I said. If we build a package of pgpsendmail, it >will have the EXACT name of the pgp package (either American or >non-American) in its dependency list, so we can't build a "generic" >pgpsendmail package. Well, it is already have EXACT name: /usr/ports/security/pgp for both PGP versions. What prevent you to do generic package? >Well, I guess we can build two packages, the only difference between >them being the dependency list, though.... You don't need to build two packages. >Why do we need to distinguish between extract, configure and build? >There isn't anything done between those two stages as far as >dependencies are concerned. I think, we need EXTRACT_DEPENDS, because package can be build several times (for tuning/debugging purposes) and we really don't need to check for extract program each build time. >Anyway, here's my revised proposal: >RUN_DEPENDS >BUILD_DEPENDS >FETCH_DEPENDS >Only RUN_DEPENDS gets pulled into the package. This BUILD_DEPENDS >includes everything from extract to install in Andrey's original >proposal. I want to add EXTRACT_DEPENDS to this list, as I said above. -- Andrey A. Chernov : ache@FreeBSD.org : From 33th IETF FidoNet: 2:5020/230.3 : Stockholm RELCOM Team,FreeBSD Team :