Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:27:58 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Michael Gmelin <freebsd@grem.de> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: HAVE_GNOME vs. bsd.ports.options.mk Message-ID: <20121010142758.GA62709@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <20121010124938.3e77bb12@bsd64.grem.de> References: <20121010121850.039fb6d2@bsd64.grem.de> <20121010102527.GB26497@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20121010123322.0677a829@bsd64.grem.de> <20121010105757.GD26497@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20121010124938.3e77bb12@bsd64.grem.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:49:38PM +0200, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:57:57 +0200
> Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>=20
> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:33:22PM +0200, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> > > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:25:27 +0200
> > > Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> > >=20
> > > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:18:50PM +0200, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> > > > > Hi
> > > > >=20
> > > > > I noticed that HAVE_GNOME doesn't work properly with
> > > > > bsd.ports.options.mk yet, so
> > > > >=20
> > > > > .include <bsd.port.options.mk>
> > > > > .if ${HAVE_GNOME:Mgnomelibs}!=3D""
> > > > > # ...
> > > > > .endif
> > > > > .include <bsd.port.mk>
> > > > >=20
> > > > > won't work, while this
> > > > >=20
> > > > > .include <bsd.port.pre.mk>
> > > > > .if ${HAVE_GNOME:Mgnomelibs}!=3D""
> > > > > # ...
> > > > > .endif
> > > > > .include <bsd.port.post.mk>
> > > > >=20
> > > > > does.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > AFAIK bsd.port.pre.mk/bsd.port.post.mk should be replaced by
> > > > > bsd.port.options.mk/bsd.port.mk in the long term, so having this
> > > > > work or documenting a workaround would help port maintainers
> > > > > who are in the process of updating the port structure.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Michael
> > > > >=20
> > > > > --=20
> > > > > Michael Gmelin
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
> > > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> > > > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> > > > > "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
> > > >=20
> > > > Which ports are you speaking about? given that
> > > > HAVE_GNOME:#gnomelibs is refering to gnome 1.4 I think this part
> > > > can safely be dropped out.
> > > >=20
> > > > regards,
> > > > Bapt
> > >=20
> > > I'm talking about the feature in general, it also applies to
> > > HAVE_GNOME:Mesound, HAVE_GNOME:Mpygnomeextras etc.
> > >=20
> > > I stumbled over this while converting polish/gnugadu2 to OptionsNG
> > > (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3D172427).
> > >=20
> > > Michael
> > >=20
> > > --=20
> > > Michael Gmelin
> >=20
> > imho HAVE_GNOME should die, as autodectection of what you have does
> > not fit at all with package building. Thing shouldn't been added
> > magically because they are on your system but only on explicit demand
> > of the maintainer/user.
> >=20
> > That said I'll have a look at the PR.
> >=20
> > regards,
> > Bapt
>=20
> I found this behaviour in many ports and I agree that by
> default people should be able to explicitly state what they want. On
> the other hand it can be extremely convenient to get all plugins your
> system supports by default (for those of us you build their ports
> themselves). I solved this in this PR by adding an "AUTODETECT" option,
> that allows the port to detect automatically only when explicitly asked
> by the builder. I had that turned on by default to make sure
> the port behaves exactly like it did before conversion to OptionsNG
> (it's not my lawn, you know). The committer changed that to be off by
> default, since this is a better solution for package building and I
> agree with him.
>=20
> Also note that there are a lot of ports that use either techniques for
> auto detection (e.g. checking for the existence of libraries to bring
> in functionality) and that those should be covered as well - simply not
> allowing auto detection will massively reduce functionality, so using
> an OPTION to allow it might be the way to go. I think AUTODETECT might
> be an interesting candidate for bsd.options.mk though.
>=20
> Michael
Autodetection will only work in the case a ports is build on a end-user mac=
hine
directly, as soon as it is build in a sane environmenent like
poudriere/tinderbox/pointyhat then it will completly fail, and won't bring =
the
feature.
regards,
Bapt
--x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAlB1he4ACgkQ8kTtMUmk6Ex5cQCfaK0d/53NwB03xlv7vX2c3AK1
YgoAni8U02EHO4DXc/FbwD9DYh04fgP8
=TJIA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121010142758.GA62709>