Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 19:13:25 +0300 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> Cc: gnome@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bsd.gnomeNG.mk Message-ID: <3D2322A5.1758BB06@FreeBSD.org> References: <3D20736D.9481E0D8@FreeBSD.org> <1025537086.321.4.camel@gyros.marcuscom.com> <3D21DFC7.15905832@FreeBSD.org> <1025639174.320.78.camel@gyros.marcuscom.com> <3D22A9CC.31CE281F@FreeBSD.org> <1025710788.319.6.camel@gyros.marcuscom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > > On Wed, 2002-07-03 at 03:37, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 2002-07-02 at 13:15, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > > > Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2002-07-01 at 11:21, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > I really sorry, but my current Real Work and New Possible Work things > > > > > > don't live much time to finish rewrite of bsd.gnome.mk to be more > > > > > > scalable than currently. Paricularly, I've stumbled into the problem > > > > > > with automatic handling of optional dependencies - it seems that it is > > > > > > impossible to correctly implement it in the new framework. Therefore, > > > > > > I am now in favour of dropping that support from bsd.gnomeNG.mk > > > > > > completely and leaving only basic autodetection stuff, so that each > > > > > > particular gnome-optional port will decide what to do with the > > > > > > obtained information (i.e. set LIB/RUN_DEPENDS, PKGNAMESUFFIX and so > > > > > > on). I will try to finish remaining work by tomorrow and submit > > > > > > results for review. > > > > > > > > > > Glad I didn't start on it ;-). I have some ideas of what I'd like to > > > > > see (something a la the XFREE86_VERSION stuff), but I await your work. > > > > > > > > Ok, see attached, both bsd.gnomeng.mk and example diff for gnomelibs > > > > port. My plan is to make both old bsd.gnome.mk and bsd.gnomeng.mk > > > > co-existing during conversion procedure (say via new USE_GNOMENG knob > > > > for already converted ports) with the goal to burry up old > > > > bsd.gnome.mk completely RSN. The new bsd.gnomeng.mk contains no > > > > provisions for GNOME2 ports, but it could be added later when GNOME1 > > > > apps is completely converted to a new framework. > > > > > > > > Any comments or suggestion are as always appreciated. > > > > > > Well, I'm still picking through it. It's quite different that what I > > > would have done, but I think it could work. I _really_ like the > > > consolidated pre-patch expressions :-). I'm going to have to update the > > > porting guide considerably. > > > > > > I'm not seeing where you actually look at the value of WANT_GNOME. You > > > allow a porter to set WANT_GNOME to a list of dependencies, but you > > > treat WANT_GNOME as a boolean macro in bsd.gnomeng.mk (or am I missing > > > something?) Should the user be able to do the same for WANT_GNOME as > > > they can for USE_GNOME? I think it would make things more flexible. > > > Also, where do you process HAVE_GNOME? > > > > I've made WANT_GNOME a boolean variable, which only indicates that > > this particular port instructs bsd.gnomeng.mk to check for actual > > presence of GNOME components on user's system and return a list of all > > actually present components in HAVE_GNOME variable. Initially I've > > played with WANT_GNOME being a list of components, but after thinking > > it out decided that it only makes things more complicated without any > > real benefit. The same applies to WITH_GNOME and WITHOUT_GNOME - now > > they are just boolean variables, indicating that user wants either all > > of GNOME or none of it. > > Okay....I was trying to think if having WANT_GNOME as a boolean will > bite us some time down the road. That is, a port like gaim that sets > WANT_GNOME will then pull in all detectable GNOME components.....I guess > this is okay (as long as WITHOUT_GNOME is respected). > > But where do you check HAVE_GNOME? It looks like you load that variable > up with components, but you don't do anything with it. You also don't > set USE_GNOME or anything like that (not that you should set > USE_GNOME). Am I missing something? Yes, you are, please see example usage in the body of the file. If WANT_GNOME is defined before bsd.port.pre.mk is included, bsd.gnomeng.mk just sets up HAVE_GNOME to be a list of all installed components (or explicitly enabled components), and then it is a task of the gnome-optional port itself to inspect this variable after <bsd.port.pre.mk> and set USE_GNOME accordingly. > >[...] > > Well, my plan is to address this on some later date, when all GNOME1 > > apps are already converted to bsd.gnomeng.mk. The immediate goal is to > > disconnect all major GNOME1 apps from GNOME1 desktop components, so > > that they could be used with GNOME2 desktop as well. Let's don't mix > > oranges and apples. ;) > > I understand. My point was simply to look ahead so as not to paint > ourselves into a corner. I wanted to make sure the NG framework will > scale to an acceptable solution for GNOME 2. I think there is some room > there based on my above idea (you may have others), and that's what I > was trying to put forward. > > > > > If you don't object, I would like to commit bsd.gnomeng.mk today, > > introduce USE_GNOMENG knob into bsd.gnome.mk and start converting > > GNOME1 core components and application after that. > > I don't mind if you address my HAVE_GNOME question above. Thanks, and > good work! I think that I did, didn't I? ;) -Maxim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-gnome" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D2322A5.1758BB06>