Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 15:25:07 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 270989] print/ghostscript10: adds libgs.so; connects to USES and DEFAULT_VERSIONS facilities; flavorized Message-ID: <bug-270989-7788-2EU2P4PmKf@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-270989-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-270989-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D270989 --- Comment #17 from Chad Jacob Milios <milios@ccsys.com> --- (In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #15) i agree in a perfect world X11 should be made an option and FLAVOR should n= ot be used here; i was only trying to more closely mimic the installation and behavior of the version 7 8 and 9 ports. And as you pointed out however, dependant ports cannot presently enforce OPTIONS in their dependencies. it makes sense some would depend on gs-x11 (which itself depends on gs-base), = and allow others to simultaneously depend only on gs-base. The FLAVORS route (as with the separate-ports route of 7 8 and 9) was set u= p so the flavors dont conflict with one another, rather -x11 compliments -base (thats why i opted to keep those suffixes rather than go with '' vs -nox11, which to me seemed to imply based on my limited observations made thruout t= he ports tree that to have no suffix vs a -nox11 suffix would mean theyre mutu= ally exclusive rather than could get installed together, and that the no-suffix version would encompass all the functionality of the lesser and then some) As you see, ghostscript9-agpl-x11 only installs the one file X11.so (ignori= ng the obligatory LICENSE in /usr/local/share) and i sought to work as similar= ly as is prudent you're probably correct that my decision to put --disable-dynamic in the ba= se flavor and --enable-dynamic in the x11 flavor would build X11.so as utter trash. that's why you're the maintainer and i'm just a pleb :) i'm not actu= ally sure the true dependency graph between libgs.so, gsx, gs's X11.so, and/or a= ny of the ports claiming dependency on ghostscript[789]-x11. i am unclear the context and greater ramifications of {en,dis}able-dynamic. i have seen ports that USES ghostscript:x11 simply because they themselves utilize x11 yet they're perfectly fine and full featured with libgs.so, wit= hout gs's X11.so. i agree the whole tree could use some cleanup around ghostscri= pt and i'd be glad to help with that at your and/or diizzy's direction i'm currently running a handful of X11 apps through their paces to figure o= ut who actually dynamically links what exactly and why --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-270989-7788-2EU2P4PmKf>